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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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