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 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

Acts Income Tax