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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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