Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of Section 201 "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

4 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Document considered: Clause 201 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." It provides an elective concessional tax regime for certain newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies and specifies conditions, computation rules and exclusions. Affected parties: domestic companies engaged in manufacture/production and the tax administration. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

The clause is framed as part of an Income Tax Bill, 2025. Statutory hooks referenced within the clause include Parts A, B and this Part of the Chapter (with an express exception for sections 199 and 200), and multiple provisions across the Income-tax enactment (sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapter VIII except sections 146 and 148, section 205(1)(a) to (g), section 116(1), section 205(4), section 205(2), and section 263(1) for due dates). The provision is limited to "a domestic company engaged in business of manufacture or production of any article or thing," and creates an option for such a company to compute income-tax at specified concessional rates subject to enumerated conditions and computation rules set out in sub-sections (2)-(5).

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 201 creates an elective special tax computation regime for a domestic company engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The regime operates "irrespective of anything contained in this Act," but is subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part (other than sections 199 and 200). The Table prescribes four tax treatments: (a) 15% on total income except incomes in clauses (b), (c), (d); (b) 22% (without any deduction or allowance) on income that is neither derived from nor incidental to manufacturing/production and for which no specific rate has been provided separately under this Part; (c) 22% on short-term capital gains from transfer of capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable; (d) 30% on income deemed u/s 205(4). Eligibility is conditional on specified criteria in column D: exercise of the option as per sub-section (2); set-up/registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024; total income computation as per sub-section (3); and fulfilment of sub-section (5) and section 205(2).

Interpretation

The clause expresses a legislative intent to provide an elective concessional tax regime for newly established manufacturing companies, but subject to precise temporal and procedural conditions. The "irrespective of anything contained in this Act" opening indicates a stand-alone/comprehensive computation model, constrained only by specified Parts and sections. The requirement that certain incomes be taxed at fixed percentage rates, and the prohibition in clause (b) on any deduction or allowance for the 22% category, indicate an intent to simplify/compress the tax base for qualifying incomes. The option mechanism and the non-withdrawable nature (sub-section (2)(c)) suggest a durable election once validly made.

Exceptions/Provisos

Key carve-outs and conditions include:

  • Temporal eligibility: set-up and registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024.
  • Computation constraints under sub-section (3): exclusions from deductions (specified sections) and prohibition on set-off of certain losses/unabsorbed depreciation per section 116(1) where attributable to excluded deductions.
  • Option mechanics: must be exercised on or before the due date specified u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return for any tax year; once exercised, it applies to subsequent years and cannot be later withdrawn.
  • Invalidation: failure to fulfil eligibility conditions in any tax year causes invalidation of the option for that year and subsequent years, with application of other Act provisions as if the option had not been exercised.
  • Amalgamation rule: option survives only for the amalgamated company if the conditions in sub-section (1) continue to be satisfied by that company.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A domestic company established on 15 November 2019 that commenced commercial manufacturing on 10 March 2024 and validly exercises the option by the specified due date will compute its manufacturing income at 15% and, if it has non-manufacturing income not covered by specific rates under this Part, such income will be taxed at 22% without deductions, pursuant to the Table. (Facts not beyond the text.)
  • Example 2: If a qualifying company derives short-term capital gains on a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act, such gains will be taxed at 22% as per clause (c). (Directly from the text.)

Interplay

The clause expressly interacts with multiple other sections and Parts: it disapplies general provisions except as noted and requires computation "as per the provisions of sub-section (3)" which cross-references sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapters and specified parts of section 205, and section 116(1). It also refers to section 205(4) for deemed income at the 30% rate and to section 205(2) in eligibility. The option exercise due date is linked to section 263(1). The Bill itself does not include other notifications, rules or circulars; if any such instruments exist, they are Not stated in the document.

Differences between the two provided provisions and Practical Impact

Comparison of the two documents (Section 201 - final statute as shown at Document 1, and Clause 201 - Bill old version at Document 2) reveals the following textual differences and their practical impact strictly as can be derived from the text:

  • Reference to Parts of the Chapter: The Bill (Document 2) refers to "Parts A, B and this Part" while the later version (Document 1) refers to "Parts A, B, E and this Part."
    • Practical impact: The inclusion of Part E in the later text expands the corpus of provisions under which specific rates of tax may be provided or under which interactions must be considered; consequently, the scope of provisions with which the concessional regime must be read may be broader in the later text. From the Bill text alone: the regime, as drafted there, excludes interaction with Part E; Document 1 includes Part E-thereby potentially changing the applicability of certain rates and interactions. (All conclusions are based on the textual difference; no external facts are stated.)
  • Clause (b) scope language: In the Bill (Document 2) clause (b)(ii) limits the 22% treatment to income "in respect of which no specific rate of tax has been provided separately under this Part." The later version (Document 1) instead references "under Parts A, B, E and this Part."
    • Practical impact: The Bill's narrower reference confines the carve-out to this Part only; the later version's wider reference brings within its ambit any specific rates provided in Parts A, B or E. This alters which incomes qualify for the 22% treatment under clause (b) depending on whether specific rates are in Parts A/B/E.
  • Specific cross-references and subsection numbering: The Bill lists "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)" while the later text lists "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)." The Bill cites "Chapter VIII other than sections 146 and 148" (plural) while the later text says "Chapter VIII other than section 146 or 148" (singular/or). The Bill refers to "section 205(1)(a) to (g)" (as a range) whereas the later text uses "sections specified in 205(1)(a) to (g)." The Bill cites "section 116(1)" whereas the later text cites "section 116."
    • Practical impact: These are drafting/precision differences. Where a specific sub-clause is cited in the Bill (e.g., 45(2)(c)), that confines the exclusion to that sub-clause rather than the whole of 45(2). Likewise, citing 116(1) narrows reference to that sub-subsection rather than section 116 as a whole. The practical consequence is interpretive: the Bill's more specific references potentially narrow the exclusions from deduction/set-off; the later text's broader references widen them. Absent other material, the Bill's text would limit the non-allowance of specific deductions to the narrowly enumerated paragraphs, whereas the later text indicates a broader non-allowance.
  • Minor drafting/format differences: Variations in plurality and punctuation (e.g., "such option, once exercised, shall apply to subsequent tax years;" appears same in both) do not change substance.
    • Practical impact: Minimal, limited to clarity and potential interpretive emphasis.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must track the temporal eligibility windows (set-up/registration and commencement dates), adhere to the option exercise deadline linked to section 263(1), and monitor continued fulfilment of conditions annually because a breach invalidates the option prospectively. The prohibition on certain deductions and set-offs requires careful computation and documentation to demonstrate attribution of losses/depreciation to excluded deductions.
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the necessity of contemporaneous evidence of incorporation/registration date, date of commencement of manufacturing/production, records establishing the nature of income (manufacturing versus non-manufacturing), allocation studies to show whether losses or depreciation are attributable to excluded deductions, and records evidencing exercise of the option within the prescribed manner and deadline. Specific forms/procedures for exercise are Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 201 offers an elective concessional tax computation for newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies with fixed percentage tax rates for categories of income.
  • The option is time-sensitive, irrevocable once exercised, and may be invalidated upon failure to meet conditions in any year.
  • Certain deductions and set-offs are excluded when computing total income for purposes of the regime; precise cross-referenced sections limit allowable deductions.
  • Eligibility is contingent on incorporation/registration and commencement dates; these temporal thresholds are integral to qualification.
  • On amalgamation, the option survives only if the amalgamated company continues to satisfy the enumerated conditions.
  • Interplay with other Parts and sections is extensive; precise statutory cross-references create interpretive points that may require careful statutory construction.
  • Procedures, prescribed manner of exercising the option, and exact forms or rules for implementation are Not stated in the document.

Full Text:

Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

Topics

Acts Income Tax