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

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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