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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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