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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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