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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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