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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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