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
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 ✕
🔎 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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others." 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 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) proposes a new, optional tax regime for specified persons (individuals, HUFs, AOPs, BOIs and certain juridical persons) prescribing slab rates and limiting specified exemptions and deductions. It matters to taxpayers choosing between regimes, tax administrators and sectors with deductions under enumerated provisions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (a provision within the Bill titled "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others"). The provision aims to create an alternative tax computation regime for persons listed in subsection (1). Coverage: the persons enumerated in subsection (1)(a)-(e). Definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the enumerated categories; references to "this Part" and "Parts A, B" indicate linkage to other Parts of the Bill but the contents of those Parts are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause creates, by default, a tax computation regime whereby income-tax for a tax year "shall" be computed at specified slab rates (nil up to Rs. 4,00,000; 5% up to Rs. 8,00,000; 10% up to Rs. 12,00,000; 15% up to Rs. 16,00,000; 20% up to Rs. 20,00,000; 25% up to Rs. 24,00,000; 30% above Rs. 24,00,000). This applies "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" but subject to Parts A, B and this Part. The default applies unless the person exercises an option as provided in subsection (4). The clause applies to specified persons: individuals; HUFs; AOPs (other than co-operative societies); bodies of individuals; and artificial juridical persons as per section 2(77)(g).

      Interpretation

      The text indicates legislative intent to introduce a simplified, optional regime with specific rate slabs and concomitant limitation on a list of exemptions/deductions. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: (i) the new regime is prima facie overriding of other provisions ("Irrespective of anything contained in this Act") save those Parts; (ii) because the provision enumerates specific exclusions from deductions/exemptions, the clause is to be read as a self-contained regime requiring affirmative opt-in/opt-out mechanics per subsection (4); (iii) specified carve-outs and modifications (e.g., Chapter VIII carve-outs and IFSC special rule) are deliberate limits to the general non-allowance rule. Legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs: subsection (2) prescribes that "total income" for the regime shall be computed without any exemption or deduction under the listed provisions-Schedule III entries (specified table items), sections 144, 19(1) (Table: Sl. No.1), 22(1)(b) (re properties in section 21(6)), 33(8), 48, 49, 45(3)(a)/(b)/(c), 46, 47(1)(a), and "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146." Further, subsection (2)(b) excludes set-off of certain carried forward losses or depreciation attributable to the exclusions, and disallows set-off of house property loss against other heads. Subsection (2)(c) excludes any exemption or deduction for allowances/perquisites provided under any other law. Subsection (3) deems such loss and depreciation as already given full effect-no further deduction later. Opt-in/opt-out rules in subsection (4) provide procedural timings and restrictions (see below). Subsection (5) provides a modification for IFSC units (subject to conditions) - specific temporal scope is included in the Act but in the Bill the provision is limited to certain tax years (see Background & Scope comparison above).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual with total income Rs. 9,00,000 under the new regime would be taxed at 5% on income from Rs.4,00,001-8,00,000 and 10% on Rs.8,00,001-9,00,000. Not stated: interaction with surcharge/cess or rebate-Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An HUF claiming deductions under Schedule III (Table Sl. No. 5) would not be permitted that deduction when computing total income under this regime. Not stated: whether Schedule III entries have alternative relief mechanisms-Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly attempts to sit alongside other provisions by overriding them save where otherwise provided ("Irrespective... but subject to Parts A, B and this Part"), and by listing specific provisions whose exemptions/deductions are not allowed. It further contemplates exceptions (Chapter VIII carve-outs) and special treatment for IFSC units. Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document. Interaction with Chapter XVII-B (if any) or Parts E: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 202 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)and Practical Impact

      • Scope vis-`a-vis other parts of the Act: Act version (Document 1) qualifies subsection (1) with "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act other than Chapter XVII-B but subject to Parts A, B, E and this Part of this Chapter," whereas the Bill version (Document 2) states "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Act excludes Chapter XVII-B explicitly and adds Part E in the list; the Bill does not refer to Chapter XVII-B or Part E and omits an explicit carve-out. This may change which other provisions (for instance, Chapter XVII-B matters) override or interact with the new regime. Practically, taxpayers and practitioners must check whether Chapter XVII-B or Part E contain provisions intended to operate alongside or override the new regime; the Act clarifies that Chapter XVII-B is not overridden, reducing uncertainty.
      • Drafting differences in subsection (2)(a)(xii): The Act (Document 1) refers to "Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1) and 124(2), or 125(2) or 146;" the Bill (Document 2) refers to "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146;"
        • Practical impact: Different cross-references to provisions of Chapter VIII are carved out from the exclusions. The Act permits sections 124(1) and 124(2), 125(2) and 146 to remain applicable (i.e., they are exceptions to the general non-allowance rule), while the Bill's exceptions include 124(1), 125(3) and 146 - notably listing 125(3) instead of 125(2). This change affects which specific provisions of Chapter VIII yield deductions/exemptions under the new regime. Practitioners must verify which subsection of section 125 is intended to remain effective; the Act's selection may be broader or narrower depending on content of those subsections (document does not state substantive content of those sections).
      • Modification for IFSC units in subsection (5): Act (Document 1) provides: "the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction u/s 147 shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section." Bill (Document 2) refers to: "In case of a person, having a Unit in the International Financial Services Centre, who has exercised the option under sub-section (4) for any tax year from 2020-21 to 2023-24, the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction under the said section shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section."
        • Practical impact: The Bill limits the special rule to units which exercised the option for 2020-21 to 2023-24; the Act removes that temporal restriction and frames it generally (no reference to specific tax years). Practically, the Act broadens availability of deduction u/s 147 for IFSC units without the historical exercise requirement, benefiting more IFSC taxpayers; the Bill's limitation would have constrained relief to a subset who opted in that historic window.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation variances: There are small differences in punctuation (commas, full stops) and phrasing ("in such manner as may be prescribed" vs. "in such manner as prescribed" in sub-section (4));
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting, but may influence interpretation of prescription of procedure. The Act's phrasing "in such manner as may be prescribed" follows common statutory formulation permitting subordinate legislation; the Bill's wording is slightly less conventional but substance appears same. Document does not state legislative debate or intent behind wording changes.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Taxpayers must decide to opt out of the default simplified regime by exercising the option in the prescribed manner; those with business/professional income must exercise option on or before the due date for furnishing returns u/s 263(1) (as referenced). Failure to follow the procedure may lock a taxpayer into the default tax computation with limited deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the enumerated disallowances and the deeming in subsection (3) that losses/depreciation are fully given effect to, taxpayers should retain documentation showing prior loss/ depreciation origins and any correspondence or filings demonstrating exercise/withdrawal of the option and timing. The document does not specify forms, formats or filing codes-Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause establishes a default simplified tax slab regime for specified persons, with detailed slab rates.
      • The regime disallows a range of specified exemptions and deductions when computing "total income", and restricts set-off of certain losses.
      • Taxpayers can opt out/opt in subject to timing and one-time withdrawal rules; business/profession taxpayers have a specified due date for option exercise.
      • There is a deemed finality for certain losses/depreciation-no further deduction in later years.
      • Special modification exists for IFSC units regarding deduction u/s 147, but the Bill limits this to certain tax years (2020-21 to 2023-24) in the Old Version.
      • Several cross-references to Parts and Chapters indicate this clause's operation is contingent on other Bill provisions; those other provisions are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical compliance requires careful timing and documentation; procedural details and administrative rules are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax