Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 207 "Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies." 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 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets special tax treatment for non-residents (other than companies) and foreign companies in respect of dividends, specified categories of interest, distributed income on certain instruments, income arising from units of mutual funds/UTI purchased in foreign currency, royalties and technical service fees. It prescribes specified tax rates for these incomes and limits deductions; the provision affects taxpayers who are non-resident individuals and foreign companies, as well as Indian deductors. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out special tax treatment for non-residents (not being a company) and foreign companies where their total income includes specified categories: dividends, certain interest receipts, distributed income, income in respect of units of specified mutual funds/UTI, royalty, and fees for technical services. The provision prescribes fixed rates (largely 20%, with exceptions such as 10% for IFSC unit dividends and 5% for certain infrastructure debt fund interest), and provides that the aggregate income-tax payable on the total income shall be the sum of the taxes specified for those income heads and the income-tax chargeable on the residual total income.

      The section applies when the total income of the non-resident includes any income in column B of the prescribed tables. For royalties and fees for technical services received in pursuance of specified agreements (post-31 March 1976), subject to approval or conformity with industrial policy, similar prescribed taxes apply.

      Interpretation

      The provision adopts a source-based, head-specific approach: particular income heads are assigned specific tax rates, and the aggregate tax payable is the sum of the taxes on those heads plus tax on the remainder of total income. Legislative intent indicated by the text is to provide certainty through fixed withholding/tax rates for certain cross-border payments to non-residents/foreign companies. The text distinguishes between specified low rates for targeted investment vehicles (IFSC, infrastructure debt funds) and higher standard rates for other passive income categories.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (2) creates an exception-like framework for royalties and FTS where the income arises under agreements made after 31 March 1976 and either approved by the Central Government (if with an Indian concern) or conforming to then-current industrial policy. Sub-section (3) narrows the application of sub-section (2) for royalty payments that are consideration for transfer/grant of rights in copyright of a book to an Indian concern or in respect of computer software to a person resident in India: in those cases sub-section (2) applies "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." Other provisos: definitions limiting "computer software" and cross-reference to section 59 for certain excluded incomes.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident (not being a company) receives dividends (not from an IFSC unit) and no other income. The dividend income is taxed at 20% as per Sl. No. 1. If that is the only income in the gross total income, no deduction under Chapter VIII is allowed. (Note: specific Chapter VIII content Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A foreign company receives royalties from an Indian concern under an agreement approved by the Central Government. Such royalties (other than section 59(1) income) are taxed at 20% under sub-section (2). If the royalty is for transfer of copyright in a book to an Indian concern, sub-section (3) applies and the provisions of sub-section (2) apply "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." The exact operational consequence of that phrase is not further explained in the clause. (Further interpretive detail Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to section 9 for meanings of "royalty" and "fees for technical services", to section 59(1) for certain excluded incomes, to section 393(2) for rates applicable to certain interest/distributed income, and to Chapter VIII and section 263(1) for return filing and deduction rules. It also references Schedule VII and Schedule VII Table item numbers for identifying specified funds and mutual funds. The clause does not set out procedural rules or tax collection mechanics; those are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 207 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Table formatting and wording for income-tax payable: In Document 1 the column C heading is "Rate of Income-tax payable" and for the final row (Sl. No. 8) it reads "Rates in force." In Document 2 the corresponding column heading is "Income-tax payable" and the final row reads "Income-tax chargeable on such income."
        • Practical impact: the Act text (Document 1) appears to fix the phrase to indicate specified rates for listed items and uses "Rates in force" for residual income; the Bill uses a more general phrase. Substantively both convey that normal rates apply to residual income; difference is terminological and unlikely to alter tax computation in practice.
      • Sub-section (4)(a) - Definition of "computer software": Document 1 states "or any customised electronic data or any product or service of similar nature as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India to a place outside India by any means;" Document 2 states the same but omits the phrase "as may be" before "notified by the Board" and places a semicolon differently.
        • Practical impact: no substantive change to meaning; both leave scope to Board notifications.
      • Scope of disallowed deductions (sub-section (5)): Document 1 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 58, 60 and 61 and section 93"; Document 2 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 61 and section 93."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 excludes section 59 from the disallowance list (by omitting it when listing 28-58, 60 and 61), whereas Document 2's phrasing "28 to 61" would include section 59 within the disallowed range. This is a substantive drafting difference: Document 1 appears to preserve section 59 (which is referenced elsewhere in the section as describing certain excluded incomes) outside the blanket disallowance; Document 2 would disallow deductions even when income falls u/s 59 unless other text provides otherwise. Practical impact: potential change in deductible expenditures permitted against certain royalty/FTS incomes if section 59 incomes are intended to be treated differently. This may affect non-resident tax liabilities and treaty interpretations; however, the precise operational effect depends on interaction with section 59 and other provisions.
      • Sub-section (6) - Chapter VIII / Schedule references and treatment: Document 1 specifies "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII and Schedule XV" when gross total income consists only of the incomes listed; Document 2 states "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII" (no mention of Schedule XV).
        • Practical impact: Document 1 narrows allowances further by expressly excluding Schedule XV deductions in the single-income scenario; Document 2 does not include that express exclusion. This difference potentially alters whether certain Schedule XV deductions remain available. The practical effect depends on what Schedule XV contains (Not stated in the document).
      • Overall syntactic and typographical corrections: Document 1 shows tightened punctuation, clearer tables and explicit reference to Schedule XV, while Document 2 contains trailing editorial notes and minor inconsistencies.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 (Act) appears to be a cleaned-up final version; substantive differences of practical consequence are mainly the treatment of section 59 in the disallowance range (sub-section (5)) and the explicit Schedule XV exclusion in sub-section (6).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must correctly classify income under the listed heads (dividend, various interest types, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income) to apply the prescribed rates. Misclassification risks incorrect tax withholding and potential assessments. The cross-references to sections 9, 59 and 393(2) mean interpretive disputes may arise on the scope of "royalty" and "fees for technical services" as defined elsewhere. The treatment of deductions (disallowance u/ss 28-61 per this Bill text) creates a compliance risk where taxpayers expect to claim routine business deductions against such income but find them disallowed.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where reduced rates apply (IFSC dividends, infrastructure fund interest), taxpayers will need documentary proof (e.g., confirmation of IFSC unit status, Schedule VII fund identification) to substantiate entitlement. For royalty/FTS taxed under subsection (2), written evidence of Central Government approval of agreements or conformity with industrial policy will be essential. The clause does not specify particular forms or timelines for producing such evidence (Not stated in the document).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 207 prescribes head-specific fixed tax rates for non-residents/foreign companies on passive income heads (dividend, interest, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income).
      • Certain preferential rates apply (10% for IFSC unit dividends; 5% for qualifying infrastructure debt fund interest).
      • Royalties and FTS under specified post-1976 agreements attract 20% (subject to approval/policy conditions), with a further carve-out for certain royalty transfers under sub-section (3).
      • The Bill disallows deductions under a broad range of sections (28-61) for computing incomes listed, constraining offset of expenses against these incomes.
      • When such listed incomes form only the gross total income, deductions under Chapter VIII are barred.
      • The provision relies on multiple cross-references (sections 9, 59, 263(1), 393(2) and schedules) for definitions, exclusions and rates; interpretive disputes may arise at those intersections.
      • Specific procedural, evidentiary and administrative details (forms, withholding mechanisms, applicability in presence of tax treaties, relief provisions) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax