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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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