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
    PMLA and Predicate Offenses: Deciphering the Scope of Proceeds of Crime under PMLA: A Supreme Court ...
    Resolution Applicant's Eligibility under the IBC: A Balancing Act Between Stringent Rules and MSME P...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Revisiting Shareholder Rights in Securities Law: Deciphering the Bounds of Confidentiality in Corpor...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Professional Conduct in Auditing: Exploring the Jurisdiction and Compliance in Auditor (Chartered Ac...
    Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges and SEBI's Regulatory Framework in Securit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Governmental Policy Decisions: Tax Incentives and Public Inte...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Limitation Laws: Insights from a NCLAT Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case LawsCustoms
    A Judicial Perspective on Duty Assessment and Procedural Fairness in Customs Law: Validity of CBIC C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Reinforcing Fair Administrative Processes in GST Registration Cancellation: An In-Depth Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Arbitration Conundrum: Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Reassessing Tax Penalties: HDFC Bank's Challenge under the DVAT Act
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under GST Legislation: Time-Bound Compliance in GST ITC Cases
❯❯
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 LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Proceeds of crime: PMLA targets handling of tainted assets even where the person is not named in the predicate offence, scope narrowed for conspiracies.
    Existence of proceeds of crime is a prerequisite for an offence under the PMLA and must be derived from a scheduled offence; the PMLA reaches persons who handle, conceal or possess tainted proceeds even if not named in the predicate offence. Conspiracy under Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy aims to commit an offence already listed in the PMLA Schedule, narrowing scheduled-offence scope. Property acquired prior to the scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds, whereas disputed acquisitions require trial determination of their linkage to tainted funds.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under Section 29A clarified; MSME exemption under Section 240A applies at plan submission stage.
    Whether a resolution applicant is disqualified under Section 29A depends on the ineligibility criteria and the timing of assessment; the operative date for eligibility is the submission of the resolution plan, and Section 240A provides an MSME-targeted exemption from certain disqualifications to protect continuity and livelihoods.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
    The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
    Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
    The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to confidential corporate documents affirmed where confidentiality is overstretched, strengthening minority investor protections.
    Minority shareholders are entitled to access corporate documents where confidentiality claims are overstated; confidentiality and privilege cannot be used to withhold information necessary for assessing compliance with securities law. SEBI's settlement framework cannot shield material information from shareholder scrutiny; regulatory processes must balance investigatory integrity with transparency and natural justice. Non compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding norms undermines market integrity and minority rights, and settlements of serious violations require sufficient transparency to protect investor interests.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective jurisdiction of regulator challenged; effect on auditor liability, standards compliance and sanctions under companies law.
    Allegations of professional misconduct assert auditors failed to comply with statutory audit obligations, disclose material facts, exercise due diligence, obtain necessary information, and identify departures from accepted audit procedures. Appellants challenge the regulator's retrospective jurisdiction, invoke constitutional protection against retrospective penalization, and allege procedural breaches of natural justice; the regulator maintains jurisdiction, contends it afforded hearing opportunities, and asserts substantive non compliance with Standards on Auditing.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Territorial jurisdiction disputes in securities cases shape venue decisions and challenge regulatory settlement revocations and discretion.
    Disputes over venue in securities enforcement pivot on territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens, using cause of action and convenience factors to determine appropriate forum. SEBI's settlement regime under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation 2018 and the regulator's power to revoke settlements raise questions about regulatory discretion, enforceability of negotiated resolutions, and implications for corporate governance and market integrity, while High Courts' supervisory role under Article 226 intersects with statutory enforcement mechanisms.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
    Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Promissory estoppel prevents withdrawal of promised tax incentives for industrial units that invested in reliance on them.
    The dispute concerns whether the State could withdraw tax incentives by reclassifying areas and thereby affect units that invested relying on those incentives. Applying promissory estoppel, the court determined that promises inducing substantive investment could not be retracted to the detriment of the beneficiaries during the promised exemption period, balancing that protection against the State's public interest prerogative and subsequent structural tax reform.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
    Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation in insolvency: admissibility requires established debt and default and bars further merits inquiry at admission.
    Where a claim establishes debt and default and the petition is within limitation, the Tribunal's role at the admission stage is limited to admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process without undertaking an extensive merits inquiry into the underlying debt or default.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
    Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in customs law limits administrative conditions on provisional release, ensuring statutory discretion and fair hearing.
    The court evaluated whether the impugned Circular and order unlawfully limited the adjudicating authority's statutory discretion by imposing conditions on provisional release, and whether those measures violated principles of natural justice; it emphasised that executive instructions may supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions and that administrative actions must preserve statutory discretion and fair hearing requirements.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
    The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
    Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in GST registration: deficient show cause notices require reconsideration and a fresh opportunity to respond.
    Cancellation of GST registration on grounds such as fraud or suppression must comply with natural justice; a show cause notice lacking specific allegations and a decision that does not consider the taxpayer's response constitutes procedural deficiency, necessitating administrative reconsideration with a reasoned notice that permits an adequate reply.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Arbitration agreement enforceability tested against stamp duty compliance, affecting admissibility and tribunal jurisdiction.
    The central issue is whether an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument is enforceable, engaging the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act and Contract Act and asking if courts must examine only the existence of an arbitration clause or also its validity when stamp duty non compliance is alleged. The text contrasts lines of authority treating non stamping as either a jurisdictional bar that voids enforceability or a curable defect affecting admissibility, and highlights statutory mechanisms for stamping, impoundment, and remediation while mapping the practical consequences for arbitration access and enforcement.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty proportionality: penalties require deceptive conduct and mens rea before applying to disputed tax assessments.
    The decision analyzes penalties under the DVAT framework in relation to sales of repossessed vehicles, stressing that taxability remained unsettled and that penalties require conduct that is false, misleading, or deceptive. It highlights that mens rea is central to quasi criminal tax penalties and that proportionality and reasoned discretion are prerequisites to lawful penal levies; absent those elements, penalty imposition lacks statutory support.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time limits require strict compliance with statutory filing conditions, not relaxation for business constraints.
    The court construes Input Tax Credit as a concession contingent on strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, holding that time-bound procedural conditions operate as substantive preconditions to claiming ITC. The non-obstante clause is given a limited operative scope and does not nullify mandatory temporal conditions; established principles of tax-statute interpretation require literal application of the scheme and adherence to filing timelines despite commercial hardships.

    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