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 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

Acts Income Tax