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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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 214 "Tax on investment income and long-term capital gains." 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 214 Tax on investment income and long-term capital gains.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These documents are two versions of Clause/Section 214 dealing with tax rates on investment income and long-term capital gains of non-resident Indians (NRIs). They matter because they prescribe special rates applicable to categories of income of NRIs and thus affect tax incidence for taxpayers and revenue administration. The Bill version is labelled "Old Version"; the enacted Section (Income-tax Act, 2025) shows a different table structure. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Both texts are framed under the rubric "Special provisions relating to non-residents and foreign company" and labelled 214. The subject is tax on investment income and long-term capital gains of an assessee who is a non-resident Indian. Both present a table with three rows corresponding to categories of income and the tax payable on each. Definitions or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Both provisions apply to the total income of an assessee who is a non-resident Indian and which includes incomes specified in column B of the respective tables. Ingredients/elements: the tables list three categories of income with the tax payable associated with each. Specific entries:

      • Bill (Old Version): Row 1 - income from investment OR income from long-term capital gains of an asset other than a specified asset: taxed at 20%; Row 2 - LTCG on specified asset at 12.5%; Row 3 - residual total income taxed as ordinarily chargeable.

      • Enacted Section: Row 1 - income from investment at 20%; Row 2 - LTCG on specified asset at 12.5%; Row 3 - residual taxed at "rates in force."

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: Not stated in the document. The enacted provision's formulaic wording ("computed at the rate specified ... applied on the corresponding income") suggests a rule that each listed income category is to be separately taxed at the specified rate and then aggregated. Whether LTCG on non-specified assets are included in "income from investment" or are to be treated under residual rates is not specified and must be resolved by reference to other parts of the statute or legislative history, which are not provided in the documents.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs, thresholds, or conditional provisos: Not stated in the document. No provisos, step-ups, exemptions, or threshold tests appear in either table entry supplied.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (consistent with Bill text): An NRI has investment income of INR X, LTCG of INR Y on a non-specified asset, and other income INR Z. Under the Bill's table, investment income + LTCG on non-specified asset would each be taxed at 20%, LTCG on specified asset (if any) at 12.5%, and remaining income at ordinary rates. (Concrete numbers: Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2 (consistent with enacted Section): An NRI has investment income INR A, LTCG on a specified asset INR B, LTCG on a non-specified asset INR C, and other income INR D. Under the enacted Section, investment income A taxed at 20%, LTCG on specified asset B taxed at 12.5%, and the treatment of C is not specified in the table-thus either it falls under "rates in force" or is to be treated as part of another category; the document does not state which.

      Interplay

      Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document. Any interplay with other sections of the Income-tax Act, underlying definitions of "specified asset," or procedural rules is not provided in the texts and therefore not addressed here.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Structural difference in table row 1: - Bill (Old Version) - Row 1: "Income from investment or income from long-term capital gains of an asset other than a specified asset." Rate: 20%. - Enacted Section - Row 1: "Income from investment." Rate: 20%.
        • Practical impact: The Bill expressly taxed long-term capital gains (LTCG) on non-specified assets at 20% along with investment income. The enacted Section removes explicit reference to LTCG on non-specified assets from this 20% category, thereby creating potential divergence in the tax treatment of LTCG on non-specified assets between the Bill and the enacted provision (see further points).
      • Row 2 similarity and clarification: - Both texts: Row 2 taxes "Income from long-term capital gains on specified asset" at 12.5%.
        • Practical impact: There is consistency in special concessional rate (12.5%) for LTCG on specified assets for NRIs in both versions.
      • Treatment of residual income (Row 3): - Bill (Old Version) - Row 3: "Total income as reduced by income referred to against serial numbers 1 and 2. Income-tax chargeable on such income." (That is, tax as ordinarily chargeable.) - Enacted Section - Row 3: "Total income as reduced by income referred to against serial numbers 1 and 2. Rates in force."
        • Practical impact: Both indicate that remaining income is taxed under general rates. The enacted text's phrasing "Rates in force" is succinct but substantively aligns with the Bill's "Income-tax chargeable on such income." No difference in tax base implied for the residual amount itself, but combined with change to Row 1, the overall taxable quantum under general rates could be different.
      • Net effect/ambiguity regarding LTCG on assets other than "specified asset": - Bill clearly brings LTCG on non-specified assets into the special 20% charge. - Enacted Section does not mention LTCG on non-specified assets; it only lists "Income from investment" at 20% and separately LTCG on specified asset at 12.5%.
        • Practical impact: The omission in the enacted text creates interpretive uncertainty as to whether LTCG on non-specified assets continue to attract the 20% special rate or are taxed at "rates in force" (i.e., ordinary rates) as residual income. This materially affects NRIs holding long-term assets not classified as "specified asset": under the Bill they would have been subject to a flat 20% charge; under the enacted text they may be outside the 20% bucket and therefore could be taxed differently. The document does not resolve this interpretive issue. (Analytical note: the text does not state where LTCG on non-specified assets fall; therefore any definitive allocation is "Not stated in the document.")
      • Terminology and drafting precision: - Bill uses longer descriptive language ("Income-tax payable ... shall be the aggregate of the amounts mentioned in column C thereof"). - Enacted Section uses "shall be the aggregate of income-tax computed at the rate specified in the column C applied on the corresponding income specified in column B."
        • Practical impact: The enacted text explicitly frames the computation as applying a rate to the corresponding income, which is drafting clarity. The Bill's phrasing is functionally similar but less formulaic. No substantive tax computation change is expressly stated beyond what the tables show.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The primary compliance risk arises from the divergent textual treatment of LTCG on assets other than "specified asset." Taxpayers and withholding agents (if applicable) require clarity on whether such gains attract the 20% special rate (as in the Bill) or fall outside that bracket under the enacted Section. Without explicit direction in the document, inconsistent application and disputes are likely.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Taxpayers should maintain clear documentation identifying (i) whether an asset is a "specified asset" (definition not in the document), (ii) characterisation of receipts as "income from investment" versus capital gains, and (iii) computations segregating amounts taxed at special rates versus residual income taxed at general rates. The document itself does not prescribe supporting documents or forms; therefore these records are prudent based on the table distinctions.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts create special tax rates for certain categories of income of NRIs: 20% for certain investment income and 12.5% for LTCG on "specified asset."
      • The Bill (Old Version) explicitly taxed LTCG on assets other than specified assets at 20%; the enacted Section omits that explicit clause and instead lists only "income from investment" at 20%.
      • The omission in the enacted text creates ambiguity about the tax treatment of LTCG on non-specified assets (whether they remain at 20% or are taxed at general rates); the document does not resolve this.
      • No definitions (including "specified asset"), thresholds, exemptions, or effective date are provided in the documents; those matters are "Not stated in the document."
      • Taxpayers and administrators will need statutory cross-reference or official guidance to determine where LTCG on non-specified assets are to be taxed; absent that, differing interpretations and disputes may arise.

      Full Text:

      Section 214 Tax on investment income and long-term capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax