Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 311 "Charge of tax where shares of members in association of persons or body of individuals unknown, etc." 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 311 Charge of tax where shares of members in association of persons or body of individuals unknown, etc.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 311 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (hereafter "Clause 311 (Bill)"), concerning taxation where members' shares in an association of persons (AOP) or body of individuals (BOI) are indeterminate or known. This matters to AOPs/BOIs, their members and the tax department because it prescribes the rate at which such aggregate entities are taxed in absence or presence of identifiable member shares. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 311 (Bill) addresses the charge of income-tax on associations of persons and bodies of individuals. It mirrors and is substantively comparable to Section 311 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1). Coverage: taxation of the total income of an AOP/BOI depending on whether individual members' shares in whole or part of the income are indeterminate/unknown or determinate/known. Definitions or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document beyond the deeming provision in sub-section (3) concerning when shares are to be treated as indeterminate or unknown.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 311 prescribes the method of charging tax on the total income of an association of persons or body of individuals when the individual members' shares in whole or part of that income are either indeterminate/unknown or determinate/known.

      Ingredients/elements derived from the text:

      • Trigger 1 (sub-section 1): Where member shares in whole or any part of the income are indeterminate or unknown.
      • Consequence under Trigger 1: Either (a) tax on the total income of the association/body at the maximum marginal rate; or (b) where any member's total income is chargeable at a rate higher than the maximum marginal rate, tax on the total income at that higher rate.
      • Trigger 2 (sub-section 2): Where member shares in whole or any part of the income are determinate or known.
      • Consequences under Trigger 2: (a) If a member's total income excluding his share from the AOP/BOI exceeds the maximum non-taxable amount under the Finance Act for the relevant year, the association/body's total income is taxed at the maximum marginal rate; (b) If any member(s) is/are chargeable at a rate higher than the maximum marginal rate, the portions of the AOP/BOI income relatable to those members are taxed at the higher rate(s) and the balance at the maximum marginal rate.
      • Deeming provision (sub-section 3): Shares shall be deemed indeterminate/unknown if they are indeterminate/unknown at formation or at any time thereafter.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The clause seeks to prevent rate-arbitrage or avoidance by ensuring that where individual entitlement cannot be ascertained, the AOP/BOI is taxed at the highest applicable personal rate (maximum marginal rate) unless a member's own total income attracts an even higher rate. Where shares are known, the clause aims at equitable allocation: members who are already taxed at higher personal rates bear tax on the income attributable to them at those higher rates; remaining income is taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The statute signals an intent to protect the revenue and align taxation of aggregate entities with members' rates in transparent cases. No legislative history or policy rationale beyond the text is stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains operational distinctions rather than explicit provisos: the principal carve-outs are (i) where a member's own total income is taxed at a rate higher than the maximum marginal rate then the higher rate applies to the AOP/BOI total income under the indeterminate scenario; and (ii) where shares are known, portions related to higher-rate members are taxed at their rates. Threshold conditions (e.g., definition of "maximum marginal rate") and procedural details are not provided in the clause. Specific exceptions beyond these allocations: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An AOP's internal profit sharing is not recorded and member shares are unknown; the AOP's total income will be taxed at the maximum marginal rate unless a member's total personal income is taxed at a higher rate, in which case that higher rate applies. (This follows directly from sub-section (1)(a)/(b).)
      • Example 2: Member shares are formalized. A member's other taxable income exceeds the non-taxable limit under the Finance Act for the year; the AOP's total income is taxed at the maximum marginal rate. (Follows sub-section (2)(a).)
      • Example 3: Shares known; one member is taxed at a higher rate than the maximum marginal rate. The portion of AOP income attributable to that member is taxed at the higher rate; remaining AOP income is taxed at the maximum marginal rate. (Follows sub-section (2)(b)(i) & (ii).)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other legislation or administrative instruments: Clause 311 explicitly references "the Finance Act of the relevant year" for determining the "maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax" in relation to a member. Beyond that cross-reference, the text does not mention rules, notifications or circulars. Practical application will therefore require recourse to the Finance Act and possibly to other provisions of the Income-tax law for rate definitions and aggregator rules. Specific cross-references to Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Clause 311 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 311 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Structural ordering: Clause 311 (Bill) places the scenario where shares are indeterminate/unknown as sub-section (1) with alternative (a)/(b); Section 311 (Act) states a primary rule in sub-section (1) (tax at maximum marginal rate) and then in sub-section (2) provides the exception when a member's individual rate is higher.
        • Practical impact: No substantive change in outcome; only syntactic/organizational difference that may affect ease of reading but not tax consequence.
      • Reference to exempt threshold language: Clause 311(2)(a) refers to "the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax in the case of that member under the Finance Act of the relevant year"; Section 311(3)(a) refers to "the maximum amount which is not chargeable to, tax" (text broken) but context indicates the exempt threshold.
        • Practical impact: Clause 311's phrasing more precisely links the exemption amount to the Finance Act of the relevant year; Section 311's language is slightly less explicit. Practically this clarifies that current year exemption limits under the Finance Act govern the test for applying maximum marginal rate to the AOP/BOI.
      • Sub-section numbering and cross-referencing differences: Section 311 (Act) contains an express sub-section (2) dealing with cases where a member's total income is chargeable at a rate higher than the maximum marginal rate and then a separate sub-section (3) dealing with determinate shares with sub-clauses (a)/(b). Clause 311 (Bill) presents indeterminate shares in sub-section (1), determinate in sub-section (2), and the deeming provision in (3).
        • Practical impact: No substantive change; differences are organizational only but could affect citation precision during debate or drafting amendments.
      • Terminology concerning "maximum marginal rate": Both documents use the term; neither defines it.
        • Practical impact: Because both texts leave the term undefined within the clause, reliance on external provisions (e.g., Finance Act) will be necessary. Clause 311 explicitly ties the taxability test for a member's exempt threshold to the Finance Act; Section 311 is less explicit. This renders Clause 311 marginally clearer for application.
      • Overall substantive effect: The charge mechanics are consistent between the two texts: (i) if shares unknown -> tax the AOP/BOI at maximum marginal rate or higher rate if any member's total income is taxed at a higher rate; (ii) if shares known -> test each member's other income against exempt threshold and apportion taxation between portions attributable to higher-rate members and remaining income taxed at maximum marginal rate.
        • Practical impact: No change in the underlying tax policy; Clause 311 (Bill) and Section 311 (Act) are materially aligned, with only drafting and phrasing differences that affect interpretive clarity rather than substantive tax outcomes.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Entities should maintain and be able to produce contemporaneous documentation evidencing the distribution/sharing pattern among members. Where shares are not determinable, the AOP/BOI faces taxation at the maximum marginal rate which may be higher than typical corporate or aggregate rates. If any member has a higher personal tax rate, the AOP/BOI may attract that higher rate on its total income in indeterminate cases.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The clause's dichotomy between determinable and indeterminate shares places a premium on records establishing members' shares from formation and thereafter. Evidence of written partnership/AOP/BOI agreements, minutes, accounting records allocating income, and communications showing entitlements will be material to avoid the indeterminate classification. The clause's deeming rule shows that indeterminacy at formation or at any later time is sufficient to invoke the indeterminate regime.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 311 governs taxation of an AOP/BOI's total income based on whether members' shares are determinable.
      • If shares are indeterminate/unknown, the AOP/BOI's income is taxed at the maximum marginal rate or at any higher rate applicable to a member's total income.
      • If shares are known, test each member's other income against the non-taxable threshold under the Finance Act; portions attributable to higher-rate members taxed at their rates, balance at maximum marginal rate.
      • The clause contains a deeming provision that treats indeterminacy at formation or thereafter as sufficient to trigger the indeterminate regime.
      • Clause 311 (Bill) and Section 311 (Act) are substantively aligned; differences are mostly drafting and cross-reference clarifications, notably the Bill's explicit reference to the Finance Act for the exemption limit.

      Full Text:

      Section 311 Charge of tax where shares of members in association of persons or body of individuals unknown, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax