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 232 "Certain conditions for applicability of tonnage tax scheme." 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 232 Certain conditions for applicability of tonnage tax scheme.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 232 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (text titled "Certain conditions for applicability of tonnage tax scheme"). It sets out conditions, reserve requirements, restrictions and compliance obligations for companies opting into the tonnage tax regime for shipping. It matters to shipping companies opting for tonnage taxation, tax administrators and maritime regulators. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 232 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, under the Chapter concerning "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies." The clause governs the tonnage tax scheme's conditions for applicability. It addresses the obligation to credit specified reserves (the Tonnage Tax Reserve Account), definitions concerning "book profit" (by reference to section 206(2)), carry-forward and shortfall rules, permitted application of reserve funds, taxation consequences when reserves are misapplied or unused, minimum training requirements for trainee officers, limits on charter-in tonnage, bookkeeping and reporting requirements, and circumstances causing cessation of the tonnage tax option.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 232(1) requires a tonnage tax company to credit at least 20% of "book profit" (as defined by section 206(2) for income from activities u/s 228(1)(a) and (b)) to a Tonnage Tax Reserve Account each tax year. The reserve is to be used as provided in sub-section (6).
      • Sub-sections (3)-(5) provide mechanics where the company has book profit from qualifying shipping activities but book losses elsewhere: the company must create reserves to the extent possible, carry forward shortfalls to the following tax year and treat carried-forward shortfalls as fulfilling the prior year for certain purposes; however, sub-section (5) prevents application of this relief where shortfall continues into the second consecutive year.
      • Sub-section (6) permits utilisation of the reserve within eight years for acquisition of a new ship or new inland vessel for business use, and until such acquisition the reserve may be used for operating qualifying ships, excluding distribution as dividends/profits or remittance/creation of assets outside India.
      • Sub-sections (7)-(9) prescribe taxation consequences where reserve funds are used improperly, unused at the end of the eight-year period, or where the credited amount is less than the minimum. Taxability is apportioned to the total relevant shipping income in proportion to misuse or shortfall; the income so taxed is reduced by proportionate tonnage income already charged to tax in the year of reserve creation.
      • Sub-section (10) provides that failure to create the required reserve for two consecutive tax years causes the company's tonnage tax option to cease from the start of the tax year following the second failure year.
      • Sub-section (11) defines "new ship" or "new inland vessel" to include a qualifying ship previously used by another person provided it was not previously owned by any person resident in India.
      • Sub-sections (12)-(14) impose minimum training requirements (per guidelines made by the Director-General of Shipping and notified by the Central Government), mandate furnishing a certificate in prescribed form and manner with the return u/s 263, and provide that failure to comply for five consecutive tax years leads to cessation of the tonnage tax option from the following tax year.
      • Sub-sections (15)-(19) limit charter-in exposure: not more than 49% of net tonnage may be chartered in; average net tonnage is used for calculation; the manner of computing average is to be prescribed in consultation with the Director-General of Shipping; exceeding the limit causes tonnage tax computation to be disregarded for that year, and two consecutive breaches cause cessation of the tonnage tax option.
      • Sub-section (20) excludes ships or new inland vessels chartered on bareboat charter-cum-demise terms from the definition of "chartered in".
      • Sub-section (21) conditions the operation of the option for a tax year on maintaining separate books for qualifying ship operations and furnishing a prescribed accountant's report before the specified date referred to in sections 63.
      • Sub-sections (22)-(23) deal with temporary cessation of operation: temporary cessation is not treated as cessation (company deemed to be operating the ship); if a ship temporarily ceases to be a qualifying ship but the company continues to operate it, that ship is not a qualifying ship for purposes of the Part.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent, as shown by the text, is to ensure that tax benefits under the tonnage tax regime are tied to reinvestment in shipping assets and training, to prevent diversion of reserved funds for shareholder distribution or offshore asset creation, and to maintain a domestic economic nexus (through the definition caveat regarding prior ownership). The placement of prescription/consultation requirements (for computation of average net tonnage and form/manner of certificate) indicates delegated rule-making by tax and maritime authorities.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains explicit carve-outs and conditions: use of reserve funds only for acquisition of new ships/new inland vessels and operating qualifying ships (not for dividends/offshore remittances); exclusion of bareboat charter-cum-demise from "chartered in"; treatment of carried-forward shortfalls for one year but not a second consecutive year; taxability triggers where misuse/unutilised reserve arises; cessation triggers on repeated non-compliance.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A tonnage tax company has book profit from qualifying shipping activities and must credit 20% of that book profit to the reserve. If it uses such reserve to purchase a new ship within eight years, permitted use is satisfied. Not stated in the document whether timing within the tax year or accounting entries affect eligibility beyond the eight-year rule.
      • Example 2: If the company credited only 15% (shortfall 5%) and the statute requires 20%, that shortfall proportion of relevant shipping income shall not be taxable under the tonnage tax scheme but under other provisions of the Act. The document specifies the apportionment principle but not mechanical computation examples.
      • Example 3: If a company fails to comply with minimum training guidelines for five consecutive years, its tonnage tax option ceases from the beginning of the following tax year. The document does not state transitional or revival mechanisms post cessation.

      Interplay

      The Clause cross-references section 206 (for "book profit"), section 228(1)(a) and (b) (source activities), the Director-General of Shipping (for guidelines), and sections 63 and 263 (timing and return filing). It also contemplates delegated rules ("prescribed" manner) to be framed in consultation with the Director-General. Specific interactions with other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      Both documents are versions of Section/Clause 232 dealing with conditions for applicability of the tonnage tax scheme. The key differences and their likely practical impacts, based strictly on the texts provided, are:

      • Reference to "book profit" definition: Document 1 (Section 232) defines "book profit" by reference to section 206(1)(c); Document 2 (Clause 232, Old Version) refers to section 206(2).
        • Practical impact: The cross-reference change may alter which statutory definition of "book profit" is imported (different sub-provisions u/s 206 may define different aspects or contexts). That could materially change the quantum of reserve required to be credited. (Document texts do not state the substantive difference between section 206(1)(c) and section 206(2).)
      • Form/manner requirement for certificate (sub-section 13): Document 2 requires the certificate from the Director-General of Shipping to be furnished "in the form and manner as prescribed" with the return u/s 263. Document 1 requires a copy of the certificate but omits the explicit "form and manner as prescribed" phrase.
        • Practical impact: The Old Version (Document 2) imposes an express prescription requirement, suggesting delegated rules may specify format and process; the later text (Document 1) appears to be less prescriptive within the provision itself, potentially affording administrative flexibility or having that prescription located elsewhere.
      • Drafting/expressive differences around "new inland vessel" and "new ship": Document 2 repeatedly uses the phrase "new ship or new inland vessel" and in some provisions refers to "new inland vessel" (for example sub-section (18) and (20) refer to "new inland vessel"), while Document 1 sometimes uses "new ship or new inland vessel" and elsewhere simply "inland vessel".
        • Practical impact: These are largely drafting variations; however, the addition of "new" before "inland vessel" in multiple places in the Old Version may clarify that certain exclusions or rules apply specifically to "new" inland vessels. The documents do not explicitly state any interpretive consequence beyond the textual difference.
      • Delegation language and consultation on computation of average net tonnage (sub-section 17): Document 2 states "in such manner, as prescribed, in consultation with the Director-General of Shipping." Document 1 says "in such manner, as may be prescribed, in consultation with the Director-General of Shipping."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting variation; Document 1's insertion of "may be" is typical of enabling provision language but does not, on its face, change scope.
      • Reference to sections vs section (timing of accountant's report) (sub-section 21(b)): Document 2 uses "sections 63" (plural, with a typographical correction noted), Document 1 uses "section 63" (singular).
        • Practical impact: Likely immaterial if only section 63 is relevant; where multiple sections might be implicated, the Old Version's plural reference could have been ambiguous. The texts do not indicate the intended meaning beyond the words.
      • Training guideline drafting (sub-section 12): Document 2 requires compliance "as per the guidelines made by the Director-General of Shipping and notified by the Central Government." Document 1 requires compliance "as per the guidelines issued by the Director-General of Shipping and notified by the Central Government."
        • Practical impact: "Made" versus "issued" is a drafting difference without an explicit substantive effect stated in the texts.
      • Minor structural and editorial differences (sub-section 5, 7(c), 18, 20, 23): Several clauses exhibit small editorial changes (placement or repetition of "new", wording of provisos).
        • Practical impact: Predominantly drafting clarity or stylistic differences; any substantive effect would depend on the precise statutory definitions and linked provisions, which are not provided in the documents.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: ensuring at least 20% of book profit (as per section 206(2)) is credited annually to the Tonnage Tax Reserve Account; careful tracking of shortfalls and their carry-forward; strict adherence to permitted uses of the reserve and eight-year utilisation period to avoid re-characterisation and taxation under other provisions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: maintain separate books of account for qualifying ship operations; retain certification from the Director-General of Shipping in the prescribed form and manner; maintain clear documentation of reserve creation, utilisation, investments in new ships/new inland vessels, and charter-in calculations (average net tonnage computation as and when prescribed).

      Key Takeaways

      • Tonnage tax companies must credit at least 20% of book profit (per section 206(2)) to a designated reserve each tax year.
      • Reserve funds are restricted for acquisition of new ships/new inland vessels or operating qualifying ships and cannot be used for dividends or offshore asset creation; utilisation must occur within eight years.
      • Misuse or non-utilisation of reserve funds triggers taxation under other provisions, with apportionment rules and credit for tonnage income already taxed.
      • Failure to create required reserves for two consecutive years, or to meet training requirements for five consecutive years, causes cessation of the tonnage tax option.
      • Charter-in exposure is capped at 49% of net tonnage (averaged per tax year); exceeding the cap for a year negates tonnage tax computation for that year; two consecutive breaches end the option.
      • Separate books of account and a prescribed accountant's report are prerequisites for the option to have effect for a tax year.
      • Several operational details (forms, manner of certificate, computation of average net tonnage) are to be prescribed or made in consultation with maritime authorities; procedural specifics are not contained in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 232 Certain conditions for applicability of tonnage tax scheme.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax