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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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