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 229 "Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets." 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 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 229 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the manner of computing depreciation and treatment of capital gains for assets under the tonnage tax scheme applicable to shipping companies. It defines procedures for splitting written down value (WDV) between qualifying ships and non-qualifying ships, treatment where assets move between businesses, and treatment of capital gains on transfers. The provision affects taxpayers in the shipping industry and the tax department; effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 229 sits within the Part addressing special provisions relating to income of shipping companies and operates in conjunction with section 230(1)(d) (referred to for depreciation computation). The clause governs (a) computation of depreciation for the first tax year of the tonnage tax scheme, (b) allocation of WDV between qualifying and non-qualifying ships, (c) creation of separate blocks of qualifying assets, (d) adjustment when assets change use between tonnage tax business and other business, (e) allocation of depreciation for part-year use, and (f) treatment of capital gains on transfer of qualifying assets with reference to sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for computation. Definitions provided in the clause: "book written down value" means written down value as per books of accounts; "written down value" means written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax. The clause does not otherwise define "tonnage tax business," "qualifying ship," or other terms within this text. Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 229(1) mandates that for computing depreciation u/s 230(1)(d), the first-year depreciation for the tonnage tax scheme shall be computed on the WDV of qualifying ships determined under sub-section (2).
      • Clause 229(2) prescribes an apportionment formula: the WDV (A) of the existing block of assets (ships) as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year is to be divided between qualifying assets (D) and other assets (E) in proportion to the book WDV of qualifying assets (B) and other assets (C) as on the last day of the preceding tax year, via D = A x B / (B+C) and E = A x C / (B+C).
      • Clause 229(3) states that the block of qualifying assets as determined under sub-section (2) shall constitute a separate block of assets for the purposes of the Part (i.e., for depreciation rules).
      • Clause 229(4) addresses movements: (a) where a qualifying asset begins to be used for non-tonnage tax business, an appropriate portion of WDV is transferred from the qualifying block to the other block by A = B x C / D (with variables defined in the sub-clause); (b) conversely, where an other asset begins to be used for the tonnage tax business, an apportioned value is moved from the other block to the qualifying block by E = F x G / I (variables defined).
      • Clause 229(5) requires allocation of depreciation for assets changing use during a tax year in proportion to days of use in each business.
      • Clause 229(6) declares that depreciation on the newly created blocks shall be allowed as if the WDV referred in sub-section (2) had been brought forward from the preceding tax year.
      • Clause 229(7) supplies two definitions: "book written down value" and "written down value" (as described above).
      • Clause 229(8)-(9) provide that profits/gains on transfer of qualifying assets are chargeable u/ss 67 and 74 and calculated u/ss 67-81; for that purpose section 74 shall operate as if "written down value of the block of assets" were replaced by "written down value of the block of qualifying assets." Clause 229(10) clarifies "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" is as computed under sub-section (2).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts an allocation-by-proportion approach: the book WDV split (B and C) as at the last day of the preceding year governs apportionment of the existing fiscal WDV (A) to qualifying and other blocks. Legislative purpose, as discernible from the text, is to align tax depreciation in the first tonnage tax year with accounting distinctions between qualifying and other ships, while preserving continuity for tax WDV by deeming the apportioned WDV had been brought forward. The declared substitution for section 74 ensures capital gains computations reflect the qualifying block's WDV rather than the overall block. The clause indicates an intent to prevent mismatch between book and tax positions when ships move between business uses by prescribing proportional transfers and day-count allocation. No extrinsic legislative history or policy rationale beyond these textual mechanisms is provided. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, exemptions, thresholds, or exceptions are included beyond the mechanics for allocation and transfer on change of use, and the day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for part-year use. Not stated in the document: any caps, transitional time limits beyond "first tax year," or special treatment for leased vessels, second-hand ships, or cross-border issues.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (illustrative application consistent with the text): A block of ships has book WDV B = 60 and C = 40 as at preceding year-end; tax WDV A = 100. Then D = 100 x 60/(60+40) = 60 and E = 100 x 40/(60+40) = 40; qualifying and other blocks are created with those tax WDVs.
      • Example 2 (change of use): Within the tax year, a qualifying ship with book WDV C (as described in sub-clause) begins non-tonnage use; the appropriate portion to move to other block is calculated as A = B x C / D (per variables defined in the clause) and depreciation for that tax year on the asset is allocated by days used for each business.
      • Example 3 (capital gains): On disposal of a qualifying asset, capital gains are taxed u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if reference were to the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" computed under sub-section (2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 230(1)(d) for depreciation computation, and with sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for capital gains charge and computation. No mention is made of specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that further elucidate implementation. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to definitions elsewhere in the Act (e.g., definition of "tonnage tax scheme" or "qualifying ship") or to accounting standards.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope language: The Act (Document 1) expressly refers to "ships or inland vessels" in sub-section (2); the Bill (Document 2) refers only to "ships" (with "inland vessels" absent).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of inland vessels in the enacted text broadens coverage to inland shipping operators who would not clearly have been covered under the Bill's language.
      • Temporal reference for A in sub-section (2): The Bill (Document 2) defines A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year." The Act (Document 1) describes A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships or inland vessel, as the case may be, as on the first day of the tax year."
        • Practical impact: The change of reference date from "last day of the immediately preceding tax year" to "first day of the tax year" (and harmonising the asset description with inland vessels) alters the base value used in allocation; administratively this can affect numeric allocation of WDV between qualifying and other blocks and therefore depreciation in the first tonnage-tax year.
      • Definitions: The Bill (Document 2) includes two defined terms in sub-section (7): (a) "book written down value" and (b) "written down value" (explicitly defined as written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax). The Act (Document 1) contains only a definition for "book written down value" in sub-section (7).
        • Practical impact: Omission of the express statutory definition of "written down value" in the enacted section could leave a textual lacuna; however, administrative practice or other statutory definitions elsewhere may supply that meaning. Absent an express definition here, taxpayers and revenue may engage different interpretive approaches to the term when applying the allocation formula.
      • Wording concerning brought-forward written down value: The Bill (Document 2) uses clarifying language - "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that..." - in sub-section (6). The Act (Document 1) frames the same rule without the "removal of doubts" preamble.
        • Practical impact: The substantive effect appears the same (treating the created blocks as if WDV were brought forward), but the Bill's declaratory phrase emphasises intent to remove ambiguity; its omission from the Act is stylistic and arguably does not change legal effect.
      • Formula presentation and labelling: Both texts supply proportionate allocation formulas for initial division and for movements between qualifying and other assets. The Act's printed formulas in the supplied extraction show slight formatting differences and consistent broader reference to "ships or inland vessels."
        • Practical impact: No substantive change to mathematical approach is evident, but the change in A's reference date (noted above) may change numerical results.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor variances in phrasing (e.g., passive/active forms) and punctuation occur.
        • Practical impact: Generally drafting-level, except where temporal/reference changes noted above which can influence computation and coverage.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear book WDV schedules at the immediately preceding year-end to apply the proportional split; errors in computing B and C or in locating the correct A date will affect first-year depreciation and subsequent tax positions. The clause creates risk around valuation timing and the derivation of "written down value" versus "book written down value" (both defined in the clause), so consistency between accounting records and tax computations is essential.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implicitly requires contemporaneous books of account reflecting book WDV by asset, schedules evidencing the last day of preceding tax year book WDV, documentation of dates assets change business use, and day-count records for apportionment of depreciation per sub-section (5). For capital gains, records supporting the substituted WDV of the qualifying block u/s 74 application are necessary.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 229 prescribes proportional allocation of tax WDV between qualifying and other ships using book WDV proportions as at preceding year-end and creates separate qualifying blocks for depreciation.
      • Assets changing use require proportional transfer of WDV between blocks using the clause's formulas and day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for the year of change.
      • Capital gains on disposals of qualifying assets are charged u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if references were to WDV of the qualifying block computed under sub-section (2).
      • The clause explicitly defines "book written down value" and "written down value" for purposes of computation.
      • Taxpayers must retain precise asset-level book WDV records and date records to apply the formulas and to justify tax computations on audit.

      Full Text:

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax