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 228 "Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit." 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 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 228 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) which sets out the concept of "relevant shipping income" for a tonnage tax company and provides for exclusion of such income from the company's book profit for specified tax computations. It matters to shipping companies electing or eligible for tonnage taxation, tax authorities (Assessing Officers), and advisors in maritime and corporate taxation. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 228 forms part of a Part dealing with special provisions relating to income of shipping companies within the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It defines "relevant shipping income" for a "tonnage tax company", lists core and incidental activities, prescribes limits for incidental income, empowers the Central Government to exclude or limit certain activities by notification, and directs treatment of transfers between tonnage and non-tonnage businesses, allocation of common costs and depreciation, and the exclusion of the relevant shipping book profit or loss from book profit for purposes of section 206. Definitions provided in the Clause include "pooling arrangement" and "contract of affreightment" (see sub-section (4)). Other definitional details and broader contextual definitions (e.g., "tonnage tax company", "qualifying ship", "turnover") are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • The clause defines "relevant shipping income" (sub-section (1)) as the aggregate of:
        • profits from core activities (sub-section (3)); and
        • profits from incidental activities (sub-section (7)).
      • Sub-section (2) places a threshold limitation: incidental incomes in aggregate exceeding 0.25% of turnover from core activities shall be excluded from relevant shipping income and taxed under other provisions of the Act.
        • Core activities (sub-section (3)) comprise:
        • activities from operating qualifying ships; and
      • specified ship-related or inland-vessel-related activities including:
        • (i) shipping contracts - earnings from pooling arrangements and contracts of affreightment; and
        • (ii) specified shipping trades - passenger ship on-board/on-shore activities (fares; food and beverages consumed on-board) and container shipping operations such as slot/space/joint charters, feeder services and container box leasing.
      • Sub-section (4) defines "pooling arrangement" and "contract of affreightment". Sub-section (5) empowers the Central Government to exclude any activity referred to in sub-section 3(b) or prescribe limits to their inclusion in core activities by notification, with parliamentary laying and modification procedure specified in sub-section (6).
      • Sub-section (7) provides that incidental activities are those incidental to the core activities and "as prescribed for the purpose." Sub-section (8) disapplies this Part to income from non-qualifying ships - such income to be computed under other provisions of the Act.
      • Sub-sections (9)-(12) deal with related-party or non-arm's-length transfers between tonnage tax business and other businesses, market value adjustment, Assessing Officer's power to adopt reasonable basis where computation under (9) is exceptionally difficult, and ability to make adjustments where arrangements produce more than ordinary profits because of close connection or other reasons.
      • Sub-section (13) states that any loss in relevant shipping income shall be ignored for the purposes of computing tonnage income under this Part. Sub-sections (14) and (15) require reasonable allocation of common costs and allocation of depreciation for non-exclusive assets respectively. Sub-section (16) provides that the book profit or loss from the relevant shipping activities shall be excluded from the company's book profit for the purposes of section 206.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a purposive construction typical of sector-specific tax regimes: identify the operational income that is to be governed by tonnage-tax treatment (core and incidental); ring-fence (via the 0.25% threshold) peripheral income to prevent excessive unrelated trading from benefiting; and enable administrative adjustments to counter non-arm's-length transfers or artificial arrangements. The express inclusion of specific shipping trades and the definitional treatment of pooling and affreightment indicate legislative intent to capture customary shipping revenue streams within the tonnage regime. Where precise valuation is impracticable, the Assessing Officer is given discretionary power to adopt a reasonable basis - an administrative safeguard. The provision to exclude book profit/loss from section 206 computations indicates an aim to avoid double-counting or misaligned computation where tonnage rules produce separate tax outcomes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions explicitly stated:

      • Incidental income exceeding 0.25% of turnover from core activities is excluded from relevant shipping income (sub-section (2)).
      • Income from non-qualifying ships is excluded from this Part and computed under other provisions (sub-section (8)).
      • Losses in relevant shipping income are ignored for tonnage income computation (sub-section (13)).
      • Central Government may exclude or prescribe limits by notification (sub-section (5)); such notifications are subject to parliamentary laying and possible modification/annulment under sub-section (6).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A tonnage tax company earns freight from qualifying ships and incidental revenue from sale of on-board merchandise equal to 0.1% of core turnover. Under the Clause, such incidental revenue remains part of relevant shipping income (since <= 0.25%).
      • Example 2: If incidental revenues aggregate to 0.5% of core turnover, the excess 0.25% is excluded from relevant shipping income and taxed under general provisions (per sub-section (2)).
      • Example 3: A company transfers fuel stored for tonnage business to a non-tonnage business at book value materially below market. Under sub-section (9)-(11), the Assessing Officer will compute relevant shipping income as if the transfer occurred at market value, or adopt a reasonable basis if exceptional difficulties arise.

      Interplay

      Explicit interaction: sub-section (16) links with section 206 (computation/use of book profit). The Clause prescribes that relevant shipping book profit or loss is to be excluded from book profit for section 206 purposes. Other cross-references - for example, to definitions such as "qualifying ship", "tonnage tax company", or procedural rules - are Not stated in the document. References to notifications and parliamentary laying follow standard legislative procedure but do not identify subordinate rules or forms; those are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the Clause: ensuring correct segregation of core vs incidental activities; monitoring incidental income relative to the 0.25% threshold; documenting transfers between tonnage and other business at market value or maintaining supporting valuations to withstand AO scrutiny under sub-section (9)-(11); contemporaneous allocation methods for shared costs and depreciation in mixed-use assets per sub-sections (14)-(15).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: maintain detailed accounts of core activity turnover to calculate the 0.25% threshold; contracts and agreements (pooling arrangements, contracts of affreightment) and terms; market value evidence for inter-business transfers; allocation methodology documentation for common costs and depreciation; and contemporaneous justification where Assessing Officer is required to adopt or review "reasonable basis".

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause defines "relevant shipping income" as profits from enumerated core and incidental shipping activities for tonnage tax purposes.
      • Incidental income exceeding 0.25% of core turnover is excluded from the tonnage tax measure and taxed under general provisions.
      • Core activities specifically include qualifying ship operations and listed ship-related trades (pooling, contracts of affreightment, passenger on-board revenue, container shipping services).
      • Transfers between tonnage and non-tonnage businesses are to be tested against market value; Assessing Officer may adopt reasonable basis where computation is exceptionally difficult.
      • Losses in relevant shipping income are ignored for tonnage income computation; common costs and depreciation for non-exclusive assets must be reasonably allocated.
      • The book profit/loss from relevant shipping activities is expressly to be excluded from the company's book profit for section 206 computations.
      • The Central Government retains power to exclude or limit inclusion of listed activities by notification subject to parliamentary procedure.

      Differences between Clause 228 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Section 228 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Comparison based solely on the provided documents reveals primarily drafting and one substantive cross-reference change:

      • Drafting/wording changes: Minor phrasing differences appear in sub-section (4) introductory wording ("In sub-section..." vs "For the purposes of sub-section...") and in sub-section (7) ("as prescribed for the purpose" vs "as may be prescribed for the purpose"). These are stylistic and do not materially change scope.
      • Substantive cross-reference change: Clause 228 (Bill) sub-section (16) refers to "the purposes of section 206" generally; Section 228 (Act) refers more specifically to "the purposes of section 206(1)(c)".
        • Practical impact: the Act's more specific cross-reference narrows the provision's structural application to a particular sub-clause of section 206 (presumably the clause dealing with a particular computation of book profit). This narrows the operational effect and reduces ambiguity as to which part of section 206 the exclusion applies to. The Bill's broader reference could be read to exclude from multiple or all computations u/s 206; the enacted text confines the exclusion to a specific sub-provision. Any further implications depend on the content of section 206(1)(c), which is Not stated in the document.
      • Other provisions, thresholds, definitions and AO powers remain substantively the same between the two texts provided.

      Practical impact of the differences

      • Operational certainty: The Act's specific reference to section 206(1)(c) provides greater precision on which book-profit computation the exclusion affects; taxpayers and tax authorities will have clearer guidance for compliance and assessment. Exact consequences depend on section 206(1)(c)'s scope (Not stated in the document).
      • Administrative effect: Minor drafting changes do not materially alter Assessing Officer powers or taxpayer obligations under the Clause as presented in the Bill. The main compliance tasks-segregation of incomes, valuation on transfers, allocation of costs-remain required under both texts.

      Full Text:

      Section 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax