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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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