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 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 ✕
🔎 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.
Relevance Default Date
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case Laws Service Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case Laws Indian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 GST
Show AI Summary
Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
Case Laws Service Tax
Show AI Summary
Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
Case Laws Indian Laws
Show AI Summary
Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

whatsapp Join Channel
Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Comparison of section 308 "Charge of tax in case of oral trust." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

11 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 308 Charge of tax in case of oral trust.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 308 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 308 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 as presented. Both provisions address tax treatment where an "oral trust" is involved and mandate taxation at the maximum marginal rate. The primary change is a shift in the taxed person and wording: the Bill taxed the income of "the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e)"; the enacted section taxes income received by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of any person. Affected parties include trustees, persons appointed under oral trusts, and taxpayers with arrangements characterized as oral trusts. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: both texts invoke the Income-tax enactments for 2025 and cross-reference section 303(3) for the definition of "oral trust". The texts fall under the part described as "Representative assesses-Special cases". The Bill (Old Version) and the enacted Section share the objective of addressing tax charge where arrangements amount to oral trusts, but they differ in whom the charge targets and in the precise triggering language. Any further contextual legislative history, parliamentary debates, policy rationale, or commencement specifics are Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

  • Section 308 (enacted) states: Where a trustee receives or is entitled to receive any income on behalf or for the benefit of any person under an oral trust, then, irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act, tax shall be charged on such income at the maximum marginal rate.
  • Clause 308 (Bill, Old Version) provided: The income of the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e) shall be chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate, irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act.
  • Coverage: Both provisions apply to income associated with an "oral trust" as defined in section 303(3). The enacted version attaches charge to income received by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of a person, whereas the Bill version attaches tax to income of the person appointed under an oral trust (per section 303(1)(e)).

Interpretation

Legislative intent and interpretive principles must be inferred solely from the textual change: the enacted provision focuses on taxing income at the point where a trustee receives or becomes entitled to receive income under an oral trust arrangement, imposing the maximum marginal rate "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act". The Bill focused on the appointed person's income. Any broader legislative intent, purposive statements, or notes to the legislation are Not stated in the document.

Exceptions/Provisos

No provisos, exceptions, thresholds, or carve-outs are included in either text. Both are absolute in form-tax at the maximum marginal rate "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act". Any conditional exemptions or mitigating provisions are Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: Trustee receives rental income from property held under an oral trust for a beneficiary. Under the enacted Section 308, tax is charged on that income at the maximum marginal rate when the trustee receives or is entitled to receive it. (Derived from the text.)
  • Example 2: Person appointed under an oral trust receives distributions that represent their income under the arrangement. Under the Bill (Old Version), that person's income would be chargeable at the maximum marginal rate. (Derived from the text.)
  • Example 3: Differences where trustee retains income and a beneficiary is appointed under the trust: enacted Section 308 targets the trustee's receipt/entitlement, while the Bill targeted the appointed person's income. (Derived from the text.)

Interplay

Both provisions expressly reference section 303(3) for the definition of "oral trust". Neither text mentions other specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars. The statute's phrase "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" signals intended precedence over possible conflicting statutory rules (e.g., provisions that ordinarily attribute income to beneficiaries or trustees), but the exact interaction with other sections (for example, sections governing representative assessments, taxation of trusts, or anti-avoidance provisions) is Not stated in the document and would require analysis beyond the text provided.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: The enacted Section 308 shifts the immediate charge to income received by trustees under oral trusts. Trustees must therefore be alert to the possibility of tax at the maximum marginal rate on amounts they receive or are entitled to receive if the arrangement is an oral trust per section 303(3). The Bill version placed the tax charge on the person appointed under an oral trust; the enacted text therefore changes the compliance locus. The documents themselves do not state filing, withholding, or collection procedures-Not stated in the document.
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: Trustees should maintain clear contemporaneous records documenting receipt/entitlement to income, the nature of the trust arrangement (to establish or rebut classification as an oral trust), and any directives regarding benefit recipients, because the enacted section targets income at the trustee level. Specific documentation requirements are Not stated in the document.
  • Tax administration: The absolute phrasing ("irrespective of anything...") indicates limited statutory room for relief under other provisions; the tax department may treat income flowing through oral trust structures as taxable at the highest marginal rate, potentially increasing assessments and enforcement scrutiny. Implementation mechanisms and administrative guidance are Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

  • Both texts mandate taxation at the maximum marginal rate for income connected with "oral trusts".
  • The Bill (Old Version) targeted the income of "the person appointed under an oral trust" as per section 303(1)(e); the enacted Section 308 targets income received or receivable by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of any person.
  • The enacted provision changes the direct statutory charge from the appointed person to the trustee's receipt/entitlement, shifting compliance focus and potential liability to trustees.
  • Both provisions rely on the definition of "oral trust" in section 303(3); the substantive meaning and scope of that definition are essential but Not stated in the documents.
  • No exceptions, thresholds, procedural details, or commencement date are stated in the documents.
  • The phrase "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" signals statutory primacy, but interaction with other sections is Not stated in the document.
  • Practical compliance measures, withholding obligations, and administrative guidance are Not stated in the document.

Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

Topic Clause 308 (Bill, Old Version) Section 308 (Enacted)
Person on whom tax is charged The income of the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e) is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate. Where a trustee receives or is entitled to receive any income on behalf or for the benefit of any person under an oral trust, tax shall be charged on such income at the maximum marginal rate.
Triggering event Implied charge arises as to the appointed person's income (per appointment u/s 303(1)(e)). Charge arises when a trustee receives or is entitled to receive income under an oral trust.
Practical compliance locus Focus on the appointed person (possible beneficiary or appointee). Focus on the trustee (who receives or is entitled to receive income).
Scope wording Specific reference to "person appointed under an oral trust ... section 303(1)(e)". Broader phraseology: income "received or is entitled to receive ... on behalf or for the benefit of any person".
Practical impact Tax department could assess the appointed person's income at the highest rate, potentially affecting persons holding appointments in oral arrangements. Trustees may face direct taxation at the maximum marginal rate on receipts/entitlements under oral trusts; may increase administrative burden on trustees and alter structuring/management of trusts to avoid classification as oral trusts.

Action Points

  • Trustees should review arrangements that may constitute an "oral trust" u/s 303(3) and document the character of their role and receipts.
  • Persons appointed under oral trusts should ascertain whether the enacted provision changes their direct exposure; the text suggests the trustee is now the primary focus for charging the tax.
  • Tax practitioners should monitor for administrative guidance or rules clarifying collection, withholding, assessment, and relief mechanisms since the statutory text provides no procedural detail-Not stated in the document.

Full Text:

Section 308 Charge of tax in case of oral trust.

Topics

Acts Income Tax