Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax