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 206 "Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      5 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 206 Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 206 deals with "Special provisions relating to minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax" as part of the Income-tax Act/Bill, 2025. The provision governs Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) for companies (book-profit based) and Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) for non-company persons, prescribing deemed total income and minimum rates, computation mechanics for book profit/adjusted total income, credit, carry-forward, exclusions, and compliance obligations (accountant's certificate). Definitions related to convergence to Indian Accounting Standards (IND AS), transitional adjustments, "Unit" (IFSC), "Tribunal", "Adjudicating Authority", and others are included. The text supplies procedural and substantive items to be added to or reduced from book profit or adjusted total income.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision makes the following principal rules: (a) where tax computed under general provisions is less than a prescribed percentage of book profit (company) or adjusted total income (other persons), that book profit/adjusted total income shall be deemed total income and tax shall be levied at the prescribed percentage (MAT/AMT). The Bill lists categories and percentages in a Table (companies 15%, IFSC companies 9%; persons 18.5% except co-operative societies 15% and IFSC persons 9%). It prescribes the formulaic computation for book profit (B = P + (I - R)), and itemises additions (I) and reductions (R). It also prescribes further adjustments for specified classes of assessees (members of AOPs, foreign companies, transfers to business trusts, royalty incomes, insolvency, sick companies, IND AS transition impacts). The provision includes carry-forward and set off of excess MAT/AMT paid, a fifteen-year limit, and rules for recomputation where book profit increases due to past-year inclusions (APAs and secondary adjustments).

      Interpretation

      The Bill's structure (table-driven rates; formula for book profit) indicates legislative intent to have a mechanically computable minimum tax regime that applies uniformly across taxpayer categories with specified carve-outs. The provisions for IND AS transition amounts and the detailed list of book profit adjustments suggest an intention to align tax MAT base with accounting profit while neutralising specific accounting entries that distort a tax base. The carry-forward mechanism for excess MAT/AMT reflects policy to avoid double taxation while preserving minimum tax floors.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Bill lists multiple exceptions: exclusions for certain companies (life-insurance business), taxpayers who opted under various procedural sections (200(5), 201(2), 203(5), 204(2)), taxpayers assessed u/s 202(1), small taxpayers with adjusted total income not exceeding INR 20 lakh, specified funds (Schedule VI), foreign companies meeting certain treaty/residence/PE criteria, and conversions to LLP where successor LLP is exempt from carry-forward rules. Specific carve-outs exist for transactions involving business trusts, demergers, insolvency cases, and sick industrial companies. Where missing details (e.g., prescribed form specifics, prescribed manner of recomputation) the text states procedural application "as prescribed" and definitions; further procedural particulars are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic company shows book profit of INR 100 crore. Normal tax computed on total income under general provisions is INR 12 crore. Since 15% of book profit = INR 15 crore exceeds INR 12 crore, the deemed total income is book profit and tax at 15% is payable (i.e., INR 15 crore). This follows the Table in sub-section (1). (This example uses numbers consistent with Table; procedural filings and credits would follow sub-sections (13)-(16)).
      • Example 2: A non-company person claims deductions under Chapter VIII-C (other than section 149). Their regular tax is lower than 18.5% of their adjusted total income; under the provision the adjusted total income (pre-addback) is increased by the Chapter VIII-C deduction and taxed at 18.5% as AMT. (Computation specifics and certificate requirements follow sub-section (11)).

      Interplay

      The provision cross-references multiple sections (e.g., sections 33(11), 46, 63, 129, 159, 168, 170, 202, 200, 201, 203, 204, and provisions under Companies Act and IBC). It interacts with IND AS transition rules (IAS 101 references), and with provisions determining residence and treaty relief (section 159). Where the text requires prescribed forms or methods ("as prescribed"), such rules/regulations are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 206 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      Overall, the Act text (Document 1) is a finalized and more detailed statutory enactment, while the Bill text (Document 2) is an earlier draft with a different structural presentation and some substantive drafting differences. The principal differences and their practical impacts are summarised below.

      • Presentation of rates and scope: The Bill (Document 2) presents taxpayers and rates in a consolidated table (Sl. Nos. 1-5) tying percentages directly to categories of assessees (companies, units in IFSC, co-operative societies, others). The Act (Document 1) separates company provisions (sub-section (1)(a)-(c)) and non-company AMT (sub-section (2)), specifying different rate sets (companies: 15%/9%; non-companies: 18.5%/15% for co-ops/9% for IFSC units).
        • Practical impact: the Act text clarifies company-specific and non-company regimes in separate subsections; functionally the rates and covered categories largely align but the Act organizes and cross-references differently, which can affect interpretive clarity and compliance procedures.
      • Definition and computation of "book profit"/formulaic presentation: The Bill sets out an algebraic formula (B = P + (I-R)) and tabular increases/decreases (Document 2, sub-section (2)). The Act lists items to be added and reduced in narrative sub-clauses (Document 1, sub-section (1)(c)-(d)).
        • Practical impact: the Bill's formulaic approach is concise and may aid computation; the Act's narrative is more granular and contains additional specific items and cross-references (for example expanded sub-clauses and a separate clause (d)(ix) with a table for IND AS adjustments), which may be more prescriptive for practitioners preparing reconciliations to book profit.
      • IND AS / transition mechanics: Both texts address convergence and IND AS adjustments. The Act (Document 1) contains a detailed clause (d)(ix) with a Table mapping amounts to be added and reduced and cross-references to clause (e) which explains terms; the Bill contains an analogous Table in sub-section (4) with accompanying Notes (Note 1-4 and sub-section (19) definitions).
        • Practical impact: the two texts are substantially similar on substance, but wording differences and placement of notes/definitions differ; practitioners will need to follow the enacted provision (Act) which may have slightly different mechanics for the "transition amount" and IND AS items.
      • AMT for non-companies - deductions included/excluded: The Bill's Note 1 (to the main Table) lists deductions to be added back (including section 144) whereas the Act's sub-section (2)(b)(i) lists Chapter VIII-C deductions (other than section 149) and section 46 as reduced by depreciation. Document 1 does not mention section 144 in that clause; Document 2 explicitly includes section 144.
        • Practical impact: inclusion or exclusion of section 144 (carry-forward type provisions under specific heads) affects which taxpayers are caught by AMT and the quantum of adjusted total income - this is a material substantive change and alters compliance for non-company assessees who claim deductions u/s 144 (if any).
      • Exclusions and options: The Bill's exclusion list (sub-section (18)) is broader: it lists options u/ss 200(5), 201(2), 203(5), 204(2) and additional categories. The Act (Document 1) excludes fewer options in its sub-section (1)(q) and sub-section (2)(d) - e.g., the Act excludes persons who exercised option u/s 200(5) or section 201(2) for the company regime, but the Bill lists more options in a general exclusion clause (18).
        • Practical impact: the Bill's draft would have excluded more taxpayers from the regime; the final Act narrows that exclusion (or places them differently), meaning more taxpayers may be subject to the AMT/MAT regime under the enacted text than under the earlier draft.
      • Procedural filings / accountant certification: Both texts require an accountant's report in prescribed form. The Bill (Document 2, sub-section (11)) requires report generally and for companies along with return in response to notice; the Act (Document 1, sub-section (1)(s) & (2)(j)) is similar but places the company-specific filing differently.
        • Practical impact: substantively similar compliance requirement - differences are drafting/placement rather than new obligations; practitioners should follow the enacted Act's timing and form requirements.
      • Carry-forward and credit mechanics: Both texts provide carry-forward of excess tax paid and specify 15-year limitation; both disallow interest on credits and ignore excess foreign tax credits. The placement and cross-reference numbering differ (Act uses clauses (m)-(p) for company MAT credit; Bill uses sub-sections (13)-(16)).
        • Practical impact: no substantive divergence on credit mechanics, but cross-referencing and procedural nuance is governed by the enacted text.
      • Additional miscellaneous drafting differences: The Act contains specific additional sub-clauses addressing corporate insolvency, Tribunal nominations, demerger/LLP conversion exceptions, and explicit definitions in clause (t). The Bill contains analogous provisions under sub-section (19).
        • Practical impact: largely parallel, but small textual differences could affect interpretation on issues like scope of "Unit" and treatment of certain corporate events; practitioners must refer to the final enacted clause for authoritative interpretation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: companies must reconcile accounting profit to book profit per the detailed add-backs and deductions listed; reporting failures or misclassification of IND AS items, reserves, or revaluation movements can materially change MAT liability. Non-company taxpayers claiming Chapter VIII-C or section 46 benefits must assess AMT impact and prepare adjusted total income computations.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: maintenance of detailed reconciling schedules between profit/loss prepared under Schedule III/other enactments and book profit, documentation for provisions, reserves and deferred tax entries, IND AS transition schedules (including transition amount computations) and accountant certificates in prescribed form are required. Specific prescribed form content and filing timelines are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill establishes a minimum tax regime (MAT for companies, AMT for others) by deeming book profit/adjusted total income as taxable where normal tax is lower than prescribed percentages.
      • Rates differ by category: companies (15%/9% IFSC), others generally 18.5% (with co-op societies at 15% and IFSC persons at 9%).
      • Book profit is computed by prescribed add-backs and reductions (formulaic in the Bill); IND AS transition items are specifically addressed.
      • Excess tax paid under the minimum regime is creditable and carried forward up to fifteen years; no interest on such credit is allowed and certain foreign tax credit excesses are ignored.
      • Specific carve-outs exist (treaty-based foreign companies, small taxpayers, specified funds, certain procedural options), but the final Act may differ in placement or extent of exclusions - practitioners must follow enacted text.
      • Accountant's certificate in prescribed form is mandatory; procedural details and prescribed forms/methods are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 206 Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax