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 223 "Tax on income of unit holder and business trust." 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 223 Tax on income of unit holder and business trust.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out special tax treatment for business trusts and their unit holders, including deeming provisions for distributed income and a charging provision for the trust. It affects business trusts and their unit holders (notably REITs/IITs as indicated in the document) and any person responsible for making payments on behalf of a business trust. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - titled "Tax on income of unit holder and business trust" and placed under "Special provisions relating to pass-through entities." The clause addresses (i) attribution of nature and proportion of distributed income to unit holders, (ii) charging of tax on business trusts' total income, (iii) treatment of certain distributed income items as unit holder income in the tax year, (iv) a specified exclusion from the deeming rule, and (v) a reporting obligation on the payer. Definitions or extended explanations of terms (for example, "business trust", "unit holder", or Schedule V references) are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 223 contains five sub-clauses that together create a special taxation regime for business trusts and their unit holders:

      • Sub-section (1): Any income distributed by a business trust to its unit holders shall be deemed to be of the same nature and in the same proportion in the hands of the unit holder as it had been received by, or accrued to, the business trust - "irrespective of anything contained in any other provisions of this Act." This is a deeming/attribution provision.
      • Sub-section (2): Subject to the provisions of sections 196 and 197, the total income of a business trust shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate.
      • Sub-section (3): If, in any tax year, distributed income (or part thereof) received by a unit holder is of a nature referred to in Schedule V (Table: Sl. No. 3) or (Table: Sl. No. 4), then such distributed income (or part) shall be deemed to be income of such unit holder and shall be charged to tax as income of the tax year.
      • Sub-section (4): Sub-section (1) shall not apply in respect of any sum referred to in section 92(2)(k) received by a unit holder from a business trust.
      • Sub-section (5): Any person responsible for making payment of the income distributed on behalf of a business trust to a unit holder shall furnish a statement to the unit holder and the prescribed authority, within such time and in such form and manner, as prescribed, giving the details of the nature of the income paid during the tax year and such other details, as prescribed.

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a legislative intent to treat pass-through distributions from business trusts transparently - attributing to unit holders the same character and proportion as enjoyed by the trust, and ensuring certain distributions are taxed in the hands of unit holders in the relevant tax year. The use of "irrespective of anything contained in any other provisions of this Act" signals a non-obstante clause that elevates the deeming rule over potentially conflicting provisions. The charging of the business trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate (subject to sections 196 and 197) suggests a measure to prevent tax leakage or mismatch at trust level, although the exact interplay with withholding or certification provisions in sections 196/197 is prescribed elsewhere in the Act. The text frames reporting obligations to enable administrative transparency.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Explicit carve-outs in the clause: (a) sub-section (4) excludes any sum referred to in section 92(2)(k) from the deeming provision in sub-section (1). (b) sub-section (2) is qualified by "subject to the provisions of sections 196 and 197." No other provisos or thresholds are contained in the clause. Where the clause references Schedule V (Tables: Sl. No. 3 and Sl. No. 4), the content of those Tables is Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: If a business trust distributes an amount that, in the trust's hands, is profit from business, sub-section (1) deems that distributed sum to be of the same nature in the hands of the unit holder. (The document does not provide numerical illustrations.)

      • Example 2: If a distributed amount corresponds to an item listed at Schedule V Table Sl. No. 3, that distributed amount shall be deemed income of the unit holder and charged in the tax year of receipt. (Specifics of Schedule V items are Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly interacts with sections 196, 197 and 92(2)(k) of the same Act and with Schedule V of the Bill. The reporting duty references a "prescribed authority" and prescribed form/timelines (both Not stated in the document). The clause does not itself reproduce definitions or cross-refer to SEBI regulations, but a marginal note in the document indicates the clause provides for special taxation regime for Infrastructure Investment Trusts and Real Estate Investment Trusts under their respective SEBI regulations; however, the clause text does not incorporate or define those regulatory regimes. Any further interaction with rules, notifications or administrative guidance is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The deeming provision in sub-section (1) requires accurate characterisation by the trust of income streams so that unit holders are informed and taxed accordingly. Mischaracterisation at trust level could lead to incorrect taxation of unit holders; responsibility for accurate reporting appears to rest with the payer under sub-section (5). The charge in sub-section (2) of the trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate may produce higher tax at trust level unless mitigated by sections 196/197 mechanisms (details of which are Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The reporting obligation in sub-section (5) implies preservation of records that show the nature of distributed income and supporting evidence for the characterisation. The document does not detail retention periods, forms, or evidence standards; these are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 223 imposes a deeming rule: distributed income retains the same nature and proportion in the hands of unit holders as in the business trust (sub-section (1)).
      • The total income of a business trust is chargeable at the maximum marginal rate, subject to sections 196 and 197 (sub-section (2)).
      • Distributed items identified in Schedule V (specified Tables) are expressly taxed as unit holder income in the tax year of receipt (sub-section (3)).
      • Sub-section (1) does not apply to sums referred to in section 92(2)(k) (sub-section (4)).
      • Payers of distributed income must furnish statements to unit holders and the prescribed authority with prescribed details, form and timing (sub-section (5)); specifics of prescription are Not stated in the document.
      • Definitions, Schedule V content, and procedural prescriptions (forms, timelines, prescribed authority) are Not stated in the document.
      • The clause is presented as a special regime for pass-through entities; the document notes an application to REITs/IITs, but the text of the clause does not itself define those entities or reference SEBI regulations.

      Differences between Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 223 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Identified differences based strictly on the two provided texts:

      • Sub-section (2): Old Version references "sections 196 and 197"; the later Section 223 adds "and 198" (i.e., references to sections 196, 197 and 198). Practical impact: the legislative final text broadens the reservation/subject-to clause to include section 198 as well, thereby bringing any provisions or limitations in section 198 into the qualification for charging the trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate. Exact effect depends on the content of section 198, which is Not stated in the document.
      • Sub-section (5) wording: Old Version uses "as prescribed" for time/form/manner and for other details; Section 223 uses "as may be prescribed." Practical impact: this is a minor drafting variation that emphasises subordinate legislation by using "may be prescribed"; substantive change is not evident from the texts alone. The document does not state any change in the substance of prescribed requirements.
      • Contextual note: The Old Version includes an appended explanatory sentence that the clause provides for a special taxation regime for Infrastructure Investment Trusts and Real Estate Investment Trusts under SEBI regulations. That explanatory note is present in Document 2 but is Not part of the clause text. The final Section 223 text (Document 1) omits that explanatory sentence. Practical impact: the removal of that explanatory sentence from the statute text means the statute itself does not explicitly reference SEBI regimes; however, whether the provision applies to REITs/IITs is a matter of statutory interpretation and is Not stated in the document.

      Actionable Points (derived from the clause)

      • Trusts and payers should establish processes to classify income items at trust level and document the character and proportion of distributions, since those determinations flow through to unit holders under the deeming rule.
      • Payers must prepare to furnish statements to unit holders and the prescribed authority in the prescribed form and time - though the exact form/timeline and the identity of the prescribed authority are Not stated in the document.
      • Unit holders should expect taxable consequences corresponding to the character of amounts received; specifics of Schedule V items that trigger immediate taxation in the hands of unit holders are Not stated in the document and require consulting the Schedule in the Bill/Act.

      Full Text:

      Section 223 Tax on income of unit holder and business trust.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax