Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 231 "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." 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 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." It prescribes the procedure, timelines and consequences for a qualifying company to opt into or exit the tonnage tax regime for shipping companies. The provision primarily affects shipping companies that qualify for the tonnage tax scheme, Units of an International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) that have claimed section 147 deductions, and tax administrators (Joint Commissioners). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 231 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) in the Part dealing with "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies." The clause governs (i) the mode of application to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, (ii) the timeframe for application, (iii) administrative processing by the Joint Commissioner, (iv) duration and renewal of the option, and (v) circumstances under which the option ceases and consequential computation of profits. The text does not provide standalone definitions; terms such as "qualifying company," "tonnage tax scheme," "tax year," or references to sections 232, 234 and 147 are used without definition in this clause. Any definitional clarification is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 231 sets out the following regime elements:

      • Method of opting: A qualifying company may opt for the tonnage tax scheme by making an application to the Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction over the company, "in the form and manner, as prescribed" (sub-section (1)).
      • Time for initial application: Application must be made within three months of incorporation or within three months of the date the company becomes a qualifying company for the first time (sub-section (2)).
      • IFSC unit-specific rule: A Unit of an International Financial Services Centre that has availed deduction u/s 147 may apply within three months from the date on which such deduction ceases (sub-section (3)).
      • Administrative processing: On receipt of an application, the Joint Commissioner may call for information/documents, and after satisfying eligibility shall pass a written order either approving or refusing the option; a copy of the order is to be sent to the applicant (sub-section (4)).
      • Opportunity to be heard: No refusal under sub-section (4)(b) shall be passed without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard (sub-section (5)).
      • Time limit for decision: Every order under sub-section (4) must be passed before expiry of three months from the end of the quarter in which the application was received (sub-section (6)).
      • Commencement of applicability: Where approval is granted, the provisions of this Part shall apply from the tax year in which the option is exercised (sub-section (7)).
      • Duration: An approved option remains in force for ten years from the date it is exercised and shall be taken into account from the tax year in which it is exercised (sub-section (8)).
      • Ceasing events: The option ceases from the tax year in which any of the following occurs: (a) the company ceases to be a qualifying company; (b) default in complying with provisions contained in section 232(1) to (20); (c) exclusion u/s 234; (d) company furnishes to the Assessing Officer a written declaration that the provisions of this Part may not be made applicable to it. Upon cessation, profits and gains from operating qualifying ships shall be computed as per other provisions of the Act (sub-section (9)).
      • Renewal window: An approved option may be renewed within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceases to have effect (sub-section (10)).
      • Application of procedural provisions to renewals: The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal of the option in the same manner as they apply in relation to the approval of the option (sub-section (11)).
      • Prohibition on re-entry for certain companies: A qualifying company which (a) on its own opts out; or (b) defaults in complying with sections 232(1)-(20); or (c) whose option has been excluded under an order made u/s 234(4), shall not be eligible to opt for the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from the date of opting out, default or order (sub-section (12)).

      Interpretation

      The clause provides a procedural and temporal framework for entry into and exit from the tonnage tax regime. The requirement of filing an application "in the form and manner, as prescribed" signals delegated rulemaking for formats and procedural particulars. The provision makes eligibility determinations administrative (Joint Commissioner) and subject to procedural fairness (opportunity to be heard). The statutory language establishes fixed windows for initial election (three months) and for renewal (within one year from end of tax year in which option ceased). The ten-year minimum period for the option's operation once exercised is expressly stated. Legislative intent as expressed: to create a structured, time-bound mechanism for administering the tonnage tax option and to restrict re-entry after voluntary exit, default or exclusion. No broader policy rationale or legislative history is stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      There are no express provisos beyond the listed ceasing events under sub-section (9) and the ten-year bar to re-entry under sub-section (12). The clause does not state any exemptions, transitional arrangements or special treatments other than the IFSC unit rule in sub-section (3). Any additional exceptions or carve-outs are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (initial election): A qualifying company incorporated on 1 January may apply to opt for the tonnage tax scheme within three months of incorporation-i.e., by 31 March of the same year-by submitting the prescribed application to the Joint Commissioner. (This is a direct reading of sub-section (2).)
      • Example 2 (renewal): If a company's approved option ceases with the tax year ending 31 March 2030, it may seek renewal within one year from 31 March 2030, i.e., by 31 March 2031, with the renewal application processed under sub-sections (1)-(10). (Direct application of sub-section (10) and (11).)
      • Example 3 (ten-year bar): A company that voluntarily opts out on 1 April 2025 will not be eligible to opt back into the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from that date-i.e., until 2 April 2035 (sub-section (12)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-refers to sections 147, 232 and 234. It makes the tonnage tax option contingent on compliance with section 232 provisions and subject to exclusion u/s 234; the IFSC drafting ties the exercise of the option to the cessation of section 147 deduction. Specific rules, notifications or forms are to be prescribed (delegated legislation). No rules, notifications or circulars are reproduced in the clause; any detailed procedural provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must monitor timelines closely-three-month window for initial election and one-year window for renewal. Failure to comply with sections 232(1)-(20) triggers cessation and activates a ten-year bar on re-entry. Administrative decisions are time-limited (decision within three months from quarter-end), but applicants must be prepared to produce supporting documents on request. The clause imposes a procedural bar for re-entry after exit, which is a significant compliance consequence.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Companies should retain incorporation records, documents evidencing qualifying-company status, records concerning section 147 deductions for IFSC units, and evidence of compliance with section 232 requirements for the entire ten-year duration. Copies of all applications, communications and the Joint Commissioner's order should be maintained to evidence the dates of exercise, cessation and any renewals.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause prescribes a formal, time-bound application mechanism to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, administered by the Joint Commissioner.
      • Initial election must be made within three months of incorporation or first qualification; IFSC units have a similar three-month window tied to cessation of section 147 deduction.
      • Approval or refusal must be communicated in writing, and refusal requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard; decisions must be made within a statutorily prescribed period (three months from quarter-end).
      • An approved option runs for ten years from exercise and applies from the tax year of election; renewal is possible within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceased.
      • Cessation events are enumerated (loss of qualification, default u/s 232, exclusion u/s 234, or a written declaration withdrawing applicability), and cessation leads to computation under other Act provisions.
      • Voluntary opt-out, default, or exclusion triggers a ten-year ineligibility period to opt into the tonnage scheme again.
      • Details on prescribed forms, definitions of "qualifying company" and related interpretive guidance are Not stated in the document and remain subject to secondary rules or further statutory text.

      Differences between Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Two drafting differences are apparent from the provided texts:

      • Reference to sub-sections in provision on renewals: In the Bill (Clause 231, Old Version) sub-section (11) provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." whereas the enacted Section 231 in the Income-tax Act, 2025 provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (9) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." (i.e., the Act excludes sub-section (10) from the list).
        • Practical impact: This narrowing in the enacted text removes sub-section (10) (the explicit renewal window provision) from the list of provisions that apply "in the same manner" when processing renewals. The practical effect is that the renewal procedure is to be governed by the substantive procedural and eligibility provisions (1)-(9) but not by sub-section (10) itself, which could be interpreted to avoid circular application of the renewal-window provision to renewals. The Bill's version would have expressly made the renewal-window provision part of the procedural package that governs renewals; the Act's change appears to isolate the renewal window (sub-section (10)) as a standalone rule rather than a rule that is to be reapplied by reference. The document does not explicate legislative intent; further interpretation is Not stated in the document.
      • Minor drafting variance: Sub-section (1) in the Bill says "in the form and manner, as prescribed," while the Act version uses "in the form and manner, as may be prescribed." Practical impact: This is a marginal drafting or stylistic change with no obvious substantive difference in the obligation to follow prescribed forms and manners; the document does not state any intended change in delegated power.

      Full Text:

      Section 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax