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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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