Just a moment...

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 characters0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
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 SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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

      ActsIncome Tax