Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax