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 332 "Application for registration." 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 332 Application for registration

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) "Application for registration" for registered non-profit organisations. It sets out who may apply, eligibility conditions, time-limits and procedural steps for grant, rejection or cancellation of registration. It matters to non-profit entities seeking tax-status benefits and to tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner). Effective dates or commencement details: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 332, Part B (Special provisions for registered non-profit organisation), I-Registration. The provision prescribes which entities may apply for registration to claim benefits under the Part, the eligibility conditions, procedural timelines for application and decision, and consequences of delay. Definitions for terms used in the Clause (e.g., "charitable purposes" referencing section 2(23)) are limited to reference; the Clause relies on other statutory definitions. Any broader legislative context or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Clause applies to specified categories of persons who may apply for registration to claim benefits as a "registered non-profit organisation": (a) public trusts; (b) societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any law in India; (c) companies registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or companies previously registered u/s 25 of the 1956 Act and deemed registered u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013; (d) universities or other educational institutions affiliated or recognised by Government; (e) institutions financed wholly or partly by Government or a local authority; (f) persons listed in specified entries of Schedules III and VII; and (g) other persons notified by the Board.

      Eligibility ingredients (sub-section (2)): (a) constitution/registration/incorporation in India for carrying out one or more charitable purposes as referred to in section 2(23) or one or more public religious purposes, or both; and (b) properties held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public - either wholly for charitable or religious purposes, or partly for such purposes in India if constituted prior to commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Interpretation

      The Clause frames eligibility by reference to existing statutory definitions (section 2(23)) rather than redefining charitable or religious purposes, indicating reliance on established interpretive tests under the Act. The requirement that properties be "held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public" is a substantive condition: the trust character and public-benefit orientation are explicit statutory prerequisites. The decision-making role is vested in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, who must make enquiries and call for documents to assess "genuineness of activities" and compliance with other laws "material for the purpose of achieving its objects." Legislative intent beyond these textually expressed aims: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Clause contains temporal and conditional permutations in the Table (sub-section (3)) governing when applications must be made, and the period of validity if registration is granted. Notable exceptions/conditions: provisional registration is available where activities have not commenced (Table Sl. No. 1). Sub-section (4) permits condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner for reasonable cause. Sub-section (5) substitutes a longer validity (ten years instead of five) for certain lower-income applicants (income not exceeding Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding tax years). Liability for tax on accreted income u/s 352 applies where certain late applications are not condoned (sub-section (6)). Specific provisos limiting scope of object modifications (see Table Sl. No. 7) are not present in the Old Version beyond the requirement to notify within 30 days; further nuance: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Newly formed society formed in April seeking registration for tax year starting 1 April: it may apply "at any time during the tax year beginning from which registration is sought"; where activities have not commenced and provisional registration is sought, the Commissioner must decide within three months from end of month of application (Table Sl. No.1).
      • An established trust whose activities have commenced and which has never been registered may apply during the relevant tax year; the Commissioner has six months from end of the quarter in which application is made to pass order; registration, if granted, is valid for five tax years (Table Sl. No.2).
      • A registered non-profit that adopts a modification of objects must notify within 30 days of adoption; the Commissioner may, after enquiring, reject and cancel registration in such cases if not satisfied (Table Sl. No.7; sub-section (7)).

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly references section 2(23) (definition of charitable purposes), u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013, and section 352 (tax on accreted income) - indicating interplay with substantive definitions and penalty provisions elsewhere. It also refers to "requirements of any other law as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects," signalling cross-compliance checks with other regulatory regimes. Specific cross-references to Rules, Notifications or Circulars beyond "as prescribed" for form and manner: Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Applicants must ensure constitutional documents and asset-holding arrangements evidence an irrevocable trust for public benefit; timely filing is crucial because delays can attract liability u/s 352 if not condoned. Entities altering objects must be alert to the 30-day notification requirement and risk cancellation if changes do not conform to registration conditions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Commissioner is empowered to call for documents and enquiries into genuineness and compliance; applicants should retain foundational documents (trust deed, registration/incorporation records, objects clause, proof of irrevocability of asset holding), evidence of activities, financial statements (income thresholds are relevant for extended validity), and records of communications with funding authorities if government-funded.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 332 prescribes categories of entities eligible to seek registration as non-profit organisations and ties benefits to structural and trust-based conditions.
      • Eligibility requires both charitable/religious objective(s) (per section 2(23)) and assets held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit; temporal limitations apply where assets are only partly for such purposes.
      • The statutory Table creates differentiated filing windows, decision timelines and validity periods depending on commencement of activities and prior registration status; provisional registration and renewal mechanics are provided.
      • Condonation of delayed filings is discretionary and taxable consequences (section 352) follow uncured delay for certain categories.
      • The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has broad fact-finding powers and may reject or cancel registration following a hearing if not satisfied about genuineness or legal compliance.
      • Lower-income applicants (<= Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding years) may receive extended registration validity (ten years) in specified situations.
      • Form and manner of orders and applications are to be prescribed; specific rules or forms are not contained in the Clause itself.

      Differences between Section 332 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

      • Sub-section (2)(a): Clause 332 (Old) expressly includes "or both" after charitable and public religious purposes; Section 332 (Act) omits "or both" (it states "for carrying out one or more charitable purposes ... or one or more public religious purposes").
        • Practical impact: potential interpretive clarity in the Bill (Old) that combined charitable and religious purposes qualify; the Act's omission may invite question but likely not change substantive eligibility where both purposes are present-however the omission reduces textual explicitness.
      • Sub-section (3) procedural reference: The Bill (Old) requires following sub-sections (6) and (7); the Act requires following "the procedure provided in this section."
        • Practical impact: the Act's language is broader and may encompass additional subsections (e.g., 4,5) explicitly; the Old Bill's cross-reference is narrower but functionally the procedure invoked appears to align with the same subsections involved in decision-making.
      • Table - Sl. No.1 decision timeline: Clause 332 (Old) sets time-limit for passing order as "Three months from the end of the month in which application is made"; Section 332 (Act) reduces this to "One month from the end of the month in which application is made."
        • Practical impact: the Act imposes a shorter decision timeline for provisional registration where activities have not commenced, increasing administrative speed and pressure on the tax authority; applicants benefit from quicker certainty.
      • Table - Sl. No.7 scope: Clause 332 (Old) applies to an applicant "being a registered non-profit organisation, has adopted or undertaken modification of its objects." The Act narrows this trigger to modifications "which do not conform to the conditions of registration."
        • Practical impact: the Act narrows the category subject to immediate application requirement to object changes that are non-conforming, reducing compliance burden/risk of cancellation for any object modification that remains within registration conditions.
      • Substantive sequencing in sub-section (7): The Old Bill frames the enquiry "as to the compliance of such requirements of any other law ... and the genuineness of activities" while the Act frames enquiries to satisfy about "genuineness of activities, and the compliance of such requirements ... as are material."
        • Practical impact: largely stylistic, but the Act emphasises genuineness first and limits the scope of other-law compliance to requirements material to achieving objects - potentially narrowing the inquiry's scope.
      • Form of orders: Clause 332 (Old) uses "as prescribed"; Section 332 (Act) uses "as may be prescribed."
        • Practical impact: nominal; no substantive change evident.

      Action Points

      • Entities planning to seek registration should verify that their objects fall within section 2(23) and/or public religious purposes, ensure assets are held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit, and prepare documentary evidence in advance.
      • Registered organisations contemplating modification of objects should assess whether changes "conform to the conditions of registration" (per the Act) to determine the 30-day filing obligation and risk of cancellation.
      • Smaller organisations (income <= Rs. 5 crore in each of the two preceding years) should document income history to avail potential ten-year validity in designated cases.
      • Monitor the prescribed forms and order formats when notified, and be prepared for enquiries from the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner.

      Full Text:

      Section 332 Application for registration

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax