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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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