Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
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
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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax