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 230 "Exclusion of deduction, loss, set off, etc." 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 230 Exclusion of deduction, loss, set off, etc.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 230 (Old Version) is a provision in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 dealing with exclusion of deduction, loss and set-off for companies opting for the tonnage tax scheme. It prescribes that, for a relevant tax year under the tonnage tax regime, certain deductions and carry-forward/set-off of losses relating to the business of operating qualifying ships are to be excluded. The provision affects tonnage tax companies (taxpayers) and the tax department; the effective/commencement date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 230 is located in the Bill under "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies" and operates "Irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" for computation of tonnage income of a tonnage tax company for any tax year in which it is chargeable to tax as per the Part addressing tonnage tax. The clause addresses interplay with sections 28 to 52, sections in Chapter VIII, section 33 (depreciation), section 112 and specific subsections of sections 108, 109, 112 and 116. Definitions of "tonnage tax company," "relevant tax year," "qualifying ships," "relevant shipping income" and other terms are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 230 prescribes the following rules for computing tonnage income of a company that has elected the tonnage tax regime for a tax year (the "relevant tax year"):

      • Sections 28 to 52 shall apply as if every loss, allowance or deduction referred to therein and relating to or allowable for any of the relevant tax years had been given full effect to for that tax year itself.
      • No loss referred to in section 108(1) or (2)(a) or 109 or 112(1) or 116(1), insofar as such loss relates to the business of operating qualifying ships of the company, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the tax years when the company is under the tonnage tax scheme.
      • No deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII in relation to the profits and gains from the business of operating qualifying ships.
      • In computing depreciation allowance u/s 33, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the tonnage tax business shall be computed as if the company has claimed and has been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for the relevant tax years.
      • Section 112 shall apply in respect of losses that have accrued to a company before its option for the tonnage tax scheme and which are attributable to its tonnage tax business, as if such losses had been set off against the relevant shipping income in any of the tax years when the company is under the tonnage tax scheme.
      • The losses referred to in sub-section (2) shall not be available for set off against any income other than relevant shipping income in any tax year beginning on or after the company exercises its option u/s 231.
      • Any apportionment necessary to determine the losses referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made on a reasonable basis.

      Interpretation

      • The text establishes a statutory scheme that isolates the tax treatment of tonnage income and the losses/deductions related to the qualifying shipping business. The provision operates by prescribing that prior rules on losses and deductions (sections 28-52) be treated as having been applied within each relevant year, and by excluding the carry-forward or cross-set-off of specific categories of losses once the company is under the tonnage tax option.
      • Legislative intent, as suggested by the Bill's accompanying explanatory line, is to create a self-contained taxing regime for qualifying shipping operations so that the benefits of pre-existing loss positions and general deductions are neutralised or confined within the tonnage tax calculation. However, the clause itself (as reproduced) does not contain an explicit statement of legislative policy beyond the operative exclusions.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains specific carve-outs and conditions:

      • Section 112 is applied in a particular manner to pre-option losses attributable to the tonnage tax business, treating such losses as if they had been set off against relevant shipping income in any of the tax years when the company is under the tonnage tax scheme (sub-section (2)).
      • Those pre-option losses (as in sub-section (2)) are thereafter prohibited from being set off against any other income except relevant shipping income for tax years beginning on or after the company exercises its option u/s 231 (sub-section (3)).
      • Any apportionment required to identify the losses attributable to the tonnage tax business is to be made "on a reasonable basis" (sub-section (4)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company that operated qualifying ships and had incurred losses in year X before opting for tonnage tax-under sub-section (2), those pre-option losses attributable to the qualifying ships are to be treated as if set off against relevant shipping income in the years the company is under the tonnage tax scheme. Specific numeric computation or mechanics are Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: A company under the tonnage tax regime cannot carry forward or set off a loss that falls within the listed sections (108(1), 108(2)(a), 109, 112(1), 116(1)) to offset non-shipping income while under the scheme; exact treatment for partial years or mixed business incomes is Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-references and modifies the operation of multiple provisions: sections 28-52 (presumably general heads of income/deductions), Chapter VIII (deductions), section 33 (depreciation), section 112 (set-off of losses), and section 231 (exercise of option). It directs that certain general provisions be treated as having been given full effect within the relevant tax year and prevents the extension of certain loss benefits beyond the sphere of relevant shipping income. Any further interaction with other statutory provisions, rules, notifications or judicial interpretations is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to section 108(2): Document 2 (Clause 230 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)) refers to "section 108(1) or (2)(a)". Document 1 (Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) refers instead to "section 108(1) or (2)(b)".
        • Practical impact: this is a change in the specific sub-paragraph of section 108 that is excluded from carry-forward/set-off while under the tonnage tax scheme. The practical consequence is that a different subset of losses within section 108(2) will be excluded under the enacted version compared to the Bill version; the precise nature of that subset is not described in the provided texts.
      • Reference to section 109: Document 2 cites "109" (no subsection specified). Document 1 cites "109(1)".
        • Practical impact: the enacted text limits the exclusion to losses falling under subsection (1) of section 109, whereas the Bill text (as presented) arguably encompassed section 109 in its entirety. This narrows the exclusion in the enacted provision relative to the Bill (to the extent different subsections exist in section 109), but the content of those subsections is not included in the documents.
      • Document status and accompanying note: Document 2 is expressly identified as "Clause 230" of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version - and includes a short explanatory sentence: "Clause 230 of the Bill seeks to provide for general exclusion of losses, deductions and set off including the accrued losses incurred or claimed prior to opting of tonnage tax scheme by the company." Document 1 is presented as "Section 230 of Income-tax Act, 2025" (enacted text) and omits that explanatory sentence.
        • Practical impact: Document 2 is draft/bill text accompanied by a policy note; Document 1 is framed as the enacted section without the note. The explanatory sentence in the Bill version signals legislative intent but is not normative text; its absence in the enacted text means such explanatory phrasing is not part of the statute as reproduced.
      • Other textual differences: Document 1 uses "section 109(1)" and includes the phrase "in so far as such loss relates to the business of operating qualifying ships of the company," in the same clause as Document 2. Apart from the subsection-level differences noted above and minor formatting/heading differences (Clause vs Section; Bill vs Act), the remainder of the language in the two texts appears substantively the same as presented.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: A tonnage tax company must ensure that losses specified by reference to sections 108, 109, 112 and 116 that relate to qualifying ships are not carried forward or set-off while under the tonnage tax regime. Taxpayers will need to identify which of their historical losses fall within the referenced subsections and whether those losses are attributable to the qualifying shipping business. The textual requirement to treat sections 28-52 as if deductions had been given full effect in the relevant tax year also requires contemporaneous computation/documentation. The Bill's explanatory sentence confirms an intention to exclude accrued losses claimed prior to opting; however, operational details are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision's restriction on carry-forward/set-off and the requirement to apportion pre-option losses "on a reasonable basis" imply a need for clear records demonstrating the attribution of losses to qualifying ships, the computations showing deductions treated as given effect in the relevant year, and the basis of any apportionment. Specific documentary standards, evidentiary thresholds or forms are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 230 confines the tax consequences of qualifying shipping operations under the tonnage tax option by excluding certain losses, deductions and set-offs from cross-utilisation outside the shipping income stream.
      • The clause mandates that general loss/deduction provisions (sections 28-52) be treated as if applied fully within each relevant tonnage tax year.
      • Pre-option losses attributable to the tonnage tax business are to be treated as if set off against shipping income while under the scheme, but thereafter cannot be set off against other income for subsequent years beginning on or after the option (section 231) is exercised.
      • Apportionment of pre-option losses must be made on a "reasonable basis," imposing a factual allocation requirement without prescribing a formula.
      • The Bill text (Old Version) contains specific cross-references to subparagraphs of other sections; differences at the sub-section level between Bill and enacted text (where present) alter the precise scope of excluded losses.

      Full Text:

      Section 230 Exclusion of deduction, loss, set off, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax