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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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