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 226 "Tonnage tax scheme." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      6 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 226 Tonnage tax scheme.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is the Old Version of Clause 226 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, which sets out the tonnage tax scheme for shipping companies. It matters because it prescribes when a company is regarded as operating a ship for tonnage-tax purposes, and it prescribes separate computation rules and the requirement of an option u/s 231. Who is affected: companies operating qualifying ships (and, to the extent the text elsewhere indicates, potentially inland vessels). Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 226 forms part of the Bill's Part dealing with "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies" and interacts with sections 227, 228(1) and the option procedure in section 231. The clause defines the meaning of "operating a ship" for the Part, sets out that a tonnage tax company shall compute profits from qualifying shipping business under the tonnage tax scheme, treats the tonnage business as a separate business, requires separate computation of profits, makes the scheme available only if an option is exercised u/s 231, and clarifies tax treatment of tonnage income and relevant shipping income. Definitions/explanations: the clause provides that "operating a ship" includes operation of ships whether owned or chartered, and includes cases where even a part of the ship or inland vessel has been chartered in under arrangements such as slot charter, space charter or joint charter. Not stated in the document: any technical definition of "qualifying ship," "tonnage income" beyond cross-reference to sections 227 and 228, or precise procedural details for making the option u/s 231.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 226 applies to companies engaged in operating ships and establishes the availability and mechanics of the tonnage tax scheme for such activity. Ingredients/elements: (1) the clause sets out who is "regarded as operating a ship" - that is, operation of a ship whether owned or chartered and inclusion of partial charter arrangements (slot/space/joint charter). (2) If a company qualifies as a tonnage tax company engaged in operating qualifying ships, it must compute profits from that business under the tonnage tax scheme. (3) The tonnage tax business is a separate business distinct from other activities of the company. (4) Profits from the tonnage business are to be computed separately. (5) The scheme applies only where an option u/s 231 is made. (6) If a company is not covered by the scheme or has not made the option, profits from the shipping business shall be computed under the other provisions of the Act. (7) Subject to other provisions of the Part, the tonnage income is to be computed as per section 227 and "deemed to be the profits chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'", and the relevant shipping income referred to in section 228(1) shall not be chargeable to tax.

      Interpretation

      The clause signals a legislative intent to provide an elective, self-contained tax computation regime for qualifying shipping operations, distinct from general profit computation. The textual structure emphasises separability (distinct business, separate computation) and voluntariness (option u/s 231). The inclusion of charter-in arrangements (including partial charters such as slot or space charters) indicates a purposive effort to capture commercial shipping practices within the scheme's scope. Not stated in the document: explicit legislative policy rationale, rates, or formulae - these are to be found in cross-referenced sections.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions stated: companies that have not opted for the scheme u/s 231 or are not covered by the scheme must compute shipping profits under the general provisions of the Act. Not stated in the document: any qualifying tests for a "tonnage tax company," thresholds, disqualifying events, or transitional arrangements. Not stated in the document: duration or locking-in rules for the option (if any), penalties or anti-avoidance rules specific to the scheme.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company operates a fleet of qualifying ocean-going ships and elects the tonnage scheme u/s 231. Its profits from the tonnage business will be computed u/s 227 and treated as profits chargeable under business/profession, with relevant shipping income u/s 228(1) not chargeable. Not stated in the document: the numeric computation method or rates.
      • Example 2: A company carries on shipping operations but does not make the option u/s 231. Its shipping profits will be computed under the Act's general provisions (i.e., not under the tonnage scheme). Not stated in the document: whether the company may later opt in and any lock-in period.
      • Example 3: A company charters in parts of vessels through slot or space charters and conducts operations. Those arrangements are explicitly included within the clause's ambit so that such income may fall within the tonnage tax computation if the company qualifies and opts in. Not stated in the document: whether partial charter arrangements produce pro rata tonnage computations or any allocation rule.

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly cross-references sections 227 (computation of tonnage income), 228(1) (relevant shipping income), and section 231 (option mechanism). The document does not set out the content of those sections; therefore interpretation of the tonnage scheme requires reading those cross-referenced provisions. Not stated in the document: interactions with other Parts of the Act, rules, notifications, or international tax provisions (e.g., treaty implications).

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Express inclusion of inland vessels in clause (1)(a): Document 1 (Section 226, Income-tax Act, 2025) expressly reads "if it operates any ship or inland vessel, as the case may be, whether owned or chartered by it..."; Document 2 (Clause 226 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) reads "if it operates any ship whether owned or chartered by it..." and only later refers to "the ship or inland vessel, as the case may be" in the inclusory phrase.
        • Practical impact: The Act's final text (Document 1) makes the statutory scope unmistakably inclusive of inland vessels at the primary predicate (i.e. the act of operating a ship/inland vessel). This reduces ambiguity and clarifies that companies operating inland vessels are within the tonnage scheme's ambit. Affected parties: operators of inland vessels, compliance advisors and tax authorities. Consequence: more immediate application to inland navigation operators and clearer eligibility/registration and computation obligations under the tonnage tax scheme.
      • Minor drafting/formatting differences: Document 2 contains an additional explanatory sentence after the clause text ("Clause 226 of the Bill seeks to provide for tonnage tax scheme and defines that a company operating ships and giving the manner of computation of income under tonnage tax scheme for a tonnage tax company for its tonnage income.") which is an extrinsic note and not substantive law.
        • Practical impact: None on substantive tax liabilities; only aids reader comprehension in the Bill version.
      • No other substantive differences are apparent in the operative subsections (2)-(7): both texts impose separate computation of tonnage profits, require an option u/s 231, and provide that relevant shipping income referred to in section 228(1) shall not be chargeable to tax where the tonnage scheme applies.
        • Practical impact: Continuity in the scheme's mechanics; operators and tax administrators can rely on the same core structure in both drafts.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: companies operating ships must determine whether they qualify for the tonnage regime and whether to exercise the option u/s 231. Failure to correctly separate tonnage business profits from other business profits or to exercise the option when intended may result in incorrect tax treatment. Not stated in the document: penalties or specific compliance forms.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: the statutory requirement to treat the tonnage business as separate and to compute profits separately implies a need for clear accounting segregation of revenue, expenses and allocations relating to tonnage operations versus other business activities. Not stated in the document: precise documentary or books-and-records prescriptions.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 226 establishes an elective tonnage tax regime for companies operating qualifying ships that requires separate business treatment and separate computation of tonnage profits.
      • The scheme applies only if an option is made u/s 231; absent the option, general provisions govern computation.
      • The clause expressly includes chartered ships and partial charter arrangements (e.g., slot/space/joint charters) within "operating a ship."
      • Tonnage income is to be computed u/s 227 and is deemed to be profits chargeable under "Profits and gains of business or profession."
      • Relevant shipping income referred to in section 228(1) is not chargeable to tax where the tonnage scheme applies.
      • The clause requires clear accounting segregation of tonnage business, implying attendant compliance and record-keeping responsibilities.
      • Not stated in the document: precise rates, formulae, qualifying criteria for "qualifying ships," procedural details of the option, lock-in periods, or penalty provisions.

      Full Text:

      Section 226 Tonnage tax scheme.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax