Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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