Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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