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
    Distinction between Capital Gains and Business Income: Comprehensive Analysis of a Income Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Multifaceted Legal Analysis on Transfer Pricing and Tonnage Tax Scheme, Bareboat Charter, Interest...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment of Eligibility for Tax Deductions Under Scrutiny: Tribunal Upholds PCIT's Revisionary Pow...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Insight into Penalties for Procedural Lapses in Customs Documentation
    Legalities of Input Tax Credit Refunds (IGST), period of limitation and COVID-19 pandemic: A Case St...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reversal of CENVAT Credit: A Critical Analysis of a Recent Legal Dispute
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Employee Benefits: TDS on value of accommodation provided to the employees at the rate o...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Intricacies of Unexplained Investment and Legal Recourse: A Comprehensive Analysis of a recent C...
    Navigating Legal Intricacies: Power to arrest under PMLA and compliance with CrPC
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Intricacies of Taxation on Interconnect Charges in Telecom: Unraveling the Concept of 'Use or Right ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Priority of Secured Creditors in Financial Recoveries: A Comprehensive Analysis of Central Bank ...
    Navigating the Intricacies of Seizure and Confiscation under the GST Regime: A Detailed Analysis of ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Principle of Mutuality in Taxation: A Comprehensive Analysis of a Landmark Supreme Court Decisio...
    Case LawsService Tax
    Legal Nuances in CENVAT Credit Rules and Extended Limitation Periods: A Detailed Analysis
    Case LawsService Tax
    Cenvat Credit - Input Service Distributors and the Extended Period of Limitation in Service Tax Law:...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Complexities of Gold Importation - Prohibited Goods and Redemption: An Analysis of the 2023 (8) TMI...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    A Case Study on Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal in Indian Legal System
    Restrictions on availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) - constitutional validity of Section 16(4): A Landma...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Income Tax Reassessment Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Legal Dissection of Best Judgment Assessments in Tax Law, in the context of Sections 153A/153C in ...
❯❯
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
    Classification of property income: conversion into business income denies capital-gains relief and alters deduction eligibility.
    Where land initially held as a capital asset is developed and sold through partnership activity with a profit motive, the asset can be characterized as having undergone conversion into stock-in-trade and treated as business income; that characterization determines tax consequences by excluding capital-gains-specific deductions and reinvestment reliefs, and depends on the taxpayer's intention and the transactional pattern.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing applicability to tonnage tax scheme narrowed; tonnage-covered operations exempted from transfer pricing obligations.
    Transfer pricing provisions were held inapplicable to operations covered by the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and transfer pricing adjustments based on differential interest for a bareboat charter cum demise lease were rejected in light of prior consistent rulings. The Tribunal treated the relevant interest income and expenditure as business income, examined whether a negative lien equated to a fee-bearing corporate guarantee, and reviewed allocation principles for common interest and hire-charge adjustments between tonnage and non-tonnage activities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary power under section 263 upholds reassessment where deduction eligibility under section 80IB(11A) is lacking.
    The PCIT found the assessee ineligible for the deduction under section 80IB because operations commenced outside the period in section 80IB(11A); the original assessment accepted the deduction without examining this eligibility. The PCIT issued a show-cause and, treating the original order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, exercised revisionary power under section 263 to quash the order and direct reassessment, the Tribunal upholding that revision was appropriate where the error was beyond mere rectification remedies.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in customs penalties: enhanced fines require adequate justification and consideration of compliance efforts by authorities.
    The legal issue concerns penalties under the provisional duty assessment regulations for delayed document submission; adjudicators must assess the limited nature of procedural lapses, consider compliance efforts where documents are produced during show cause proceedings, and apply proportionality principles. Enhanced penalties require adequate, reasoned justification, and adjudicators should determine whether a nominal penalty already imposed is commensurate with the lapse and its impact on finalizing provisional assessment and duty realization.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation exclusion for pandemic renders delayed ITC refund claims timely under CGST limitation provision, court applies notification.
    The court held that the pandemic period exclusion notification applies to computation of the limitation for refunds of unutilised Input Tax Credit arising from exports under a letter of undertaking. After assessing eligibility issues and time barred components of the ITC claim, the court found the appellate conclusion of limitation unsustainable and quashed the impugned order, applying the notification to the refund computation.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    CENVAT credit reversal: elective accounting options cannot be imposed on a taxpayer, limiting percentage-based recovery.
    Dispute concerns entitlement to reverse CENVAT credit when a manufacturer produces both dutiable and exempt goods without separate records. Rule 6(3) provides elective options for taxpayers not maintaining segregated accounts but authorities cannot impose those options on the assessee. Rule 14 and statutory recovery provisions allow recovery of wrongly availed credit, yet there is no statutory basis to mandate recovery by applying fixed percentages to the value of exempted goods; if the assessee has already reversed credit attributable to exempted production, additional percentage-based demands or penalties lack legal support.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Perquisite valuation: absence of employer concession leads to no TDS on rent-free employee accommodation under valuation rules.
    The tribunal concluded that perquisite taxation on rent-free accommodation requires a demonstrable concession by the employer; in the absence of such concession the perquisite value is nil. Although the institution is not a Central Government entity, the Revenue's invocation of Rule 3 and fixed percentage valuation was premature. The appellate deletion of the withholding demand was affirmed on the ground that no concession existed and therefore no taxable perquisite arose.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained investments deemed taxable where cancellation deeds lack civil adjudication and source credibility is unproven.
    The tribunal sustained income tax additions under the unexplained investment provision, holding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and reality of alleged fund sources for a land purchase revealed in a survey, and that registered cancellation deeds without a civil court decree do not legally negate the original transaction for tax purposes.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Power to arrest under PMLA requires recorded reasons and limits general arrest notice requirements, affecting remand review.
    Power to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires strict recording and communication of reasons for arrest and operates through a specialized, self-contained mechanism limiting the applicability of certain general arrest notices. Judicial remand and CrPC procedures apply only to the extent they do not conflict with the PMLA; habeas corpus is available for illegal detention but is not ordinarily to be used to routinely challenge reasoned, statutorily compliant remand orders.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use or right to use: interconnect charges not treated as royalty under treaty because no transfer of use of IP.
    The core question was whether interconnect usage charges fall within royalty by virtue of conferring the use or right to use a process or equipment. The tribunal held that IUC did not amount to royalty because the telecommunications processes were standard industry practice, not proprietary or secret, and therefore did not grant a transferable right to exploit intellectual property; treaty interpretation under the DTAA controlled characterization.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Priority of secured creditors affirmed over state tax claims under SARFAESI Act, reinforcing security interest protection in recoveries.
    The court's analysis centers on the statutory priority conferred by the SARFAESI framework for enforcement of security interests, treating secured creditors' lien-based rights as superior to government tax claims on the same charged asset and narrowing the traditional Crown Debt preference where the statutory enforcement regime specifies priorities.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure powers under GST limited to goods and material useful to proceedings, excluding currency and requiring necessity.
    The power to inspect, search and seize under Section 67 is confined to items believed to be liable for confiscation or material useful to proceedings; the statutory definition excludes money from 'goods', seizure must be necessary for GST proceedings, and items not relied upon in subsequent notice are to be returned within a limited period, reflecting a narrower interpretation of 'things' consistent with legislative intent.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Principle of mutuality: interest on clubs' bank deposits treated as commercial income and not mutuality-exempt.
    The Court analysed whether investing clubs' surplus funds in bank fixed deposits preserved the identity between contributors and beneficiaries required by the Principle of Mutuality. It found that such investments diverted funds into commercial dealings with third parties and were not applied directly for members' mutual services, thereby breaking mutuality. As a result, interest earned on those investments did not qualify as exempt mutual receipts and was treated as taxable income.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation period: requires proof of fraud or wilful suppression; mere self-assessment errors are insufficient.
    The tribunal held that invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT credit requires affirmative grounds such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts; mere incorrect self-assessment, audit disagreement, or discovery during audit does not establish the necessary intent to evade, and therefore demands beyond the normal limitation period (except conceded amounts) could not be sustained.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Cenvat credit validity vs procedural lapses: extended limitation requires evidence of fraud or suppression to apply.
    Whether a PSU could claim CENVAT credit through its Head Office functioning as an Input Service Distributor despite documentation lapses, and whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation were examined. The focus is on reconciling substantive receipt of services with procedural compliance, and on the requisite showing of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to justify extending limitation beyond the normal period; mere delay without such evidence does not suffice.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Gold importation without declaration: whether undeclared imports amount to smuggling and bar redemption under customs law.
    The petitions question whether undeclared gold imports that bypass the Green Channel constitute prohibited goods or smuggling under the Customs Act, 1962, and whether adjudicating authorities properly exercised discretion under Section 125 in confiscating goods and denying redemption, given alleged arbitrariness and inconsistent treatment.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation in land acquisition appeals hinges on whether administrative impediments amount to sufficient cause.
    Delay condonation in land acquisition appeals hinges on whether administrative or bureaucratic impediments amount to a sufficient cause rather than an excuse; courts must assess explanations case-by-case, balancing procedural discipline against substantive justice while guarding against routine tolerance of government inefficiency.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time-bar upheld: legislative limits on ITC claims are valid, treating ITC as a conditional concession.
    The time-limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) was upheld as a permissible legislative condition: ITC is a concession contingent on statutory requirements, temporal restrictions fall within legislative competence, and business forms like proprietorships cannot invoke trade-right protections in the same manner as citizens; judicial interference in fiscal policy is limited where statutory mechanisms govern tax benefits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notice limitations restrict tax authorities when issued beyond limitation or without mandated approval or procedural defects.
    A reassessment issued after the three year limitation period and without approval from the specified authority fails statutory prerequisites and cannot sustain reassessment. Reassessment powers are limited to non disclosure or material misstatement of facts in the original assessment and do not extend to changes of opinion. TOLA 2020 does not expand substantive reassessment powers or alter approval requirements, and correct classification of expenses as capital or revenue remains central to tax consequence determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Best judgment assessment standards tightened when linked to search-and-seizure reassessments requiring documented satisfaction and DIN compliance.
    Best judgment assessment under Section 144 is examined alongside Sections 153A and 153C, stressing that invocation of Section 144 must be grounded in the legitimate scope opened by search-related reassessments. The court emphasises that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must be substantively supported, administrative formalities such as a Document Identification Number must be complied with, and that extensions of assessment periods require concrete evidentiary justification.

    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