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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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