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 336 "Taxable Regular income." 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 336 Taxable regular income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document compares two textual versions of Clause/Section 336 concerning the "taxable regular income" of a registered non-profit organisation: the "Old Version" as appearing in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and the later text as enacted (Section 336 of the Income-tax Act, 2025). The provision sets out when a registered non-profit's taxable regular income is nil and how taxable regular income is computed otherwise. The change primarily clarifies the reference to application (section 341) and accumulation (section 342). Affected parties include registered non-profit organisations, tax authorities, and advisors. Effective date or assent date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 336 is located in the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025 and is cast within the Part dealing with income of registered non-profit organisations. The provision addresses computation of "taxable regular income" for any tax year. The text invokes two related provisions: section 341 (application for charitable or religious purposes) and section 342 (accumulation for charitable or religious purposes). Definitions of "regular income", "registered non-profit organisation", "application", "accumulation", and related terms: Not stated in the document. The Bill version includes a short legislative note - "Clause 336 of the Bill seeks to deal with the taxable regular income of a registered non-profit organisation." No other contextual material is provided in the documents.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The operative text in both versions establishes two alternative outcomes for the taxable regular income of a registered non-profit organisation for a tax year:

      • Where 85% or more of the regular income of that tax year has been applied or accumulated for charitable or religious purposes in that tax year as per the provisions of the Part, the taxable regular income is nil.
      • In any other case, taxable regular income is 85% of the regular income for that tax year, reduced by the amount applied for charitable or religious purposes or accumulated for such purposes in that tax year as per the Part.

      Differences in wording between the versions are limited to phrasing that links "application" with section 341 and "accumulation" with section 342 in the enacted text; the Bill's older wording conflates the statutory cross-references in a manner that is less precise.

      Interpretation

      The enacted wording indicates an interpretive distinction: "applied as per provisions of section 341 or accumulated u/s 342" (Act text) - this ties application specifically to section 341 and accumulation to section 342. The Bill's earlier wording reads "applied or accumulated u/s 342" in one instance and in another instance omits reference to section 341; therefore the Bill version is ambiguous as to whether "application" must conform to section 341 or whether both application and accumulation were to be governed by section 342.

      Legislative intent (as discernible from the text): to exempt from tax that portion of regular income actually devoted to charitable/religious purposes (subject to the 85% threshold), and otherwise to require that 85% of regular income (less amounts applied/accumulated for charitable purposes) be treated as taxable regular income. Whether the statutory 85% operates as a minimum threshold for nil tax or as a base for computation when the threshold is not met is stated in the text; deeper policy rationale or legislative history: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No explicit provisos, exceptions, or thresholds other than the 85% quantitative threshold are provided in the texts shown. There are no provisos detailing what qualifies as "application" or "accumulation", time limits, or permissible uses of accumulated funds in the documents supplied: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (nil taxable regular income): A registered non-profit has regular income of 1,000,000 in a tax year and applies or accumulates 850,000 (85%) for charitable or religious purposes in that same tax year as per the Part. Under the provision, taxable regular income = nil.
      • Example 2 (taxable regular income computed): A registered non-profit has regular income of 1,000,000 but applies only 600,000 in the tax year for charitable purposes and accumulates none. Under the provision, taxable regular income = 85% of 1,000,000 reduced by 600,000 = 850,000 - 600,000 = 250,000.
      • Example 3 (aggregation of application and accumulation): A registered non-profit has regular income 1,000,000, applies 500,000 and accumulates 200,000 in that tax year for charitable purposes. Total applied or accumulated = 700,000 (<85%); taxable regular income = 850,000 - 700,000 = 150,000.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly references sections 341 and 342 (in the enacted text) as the governing provisions for application and accumulation. Any rules, notifications, circulars, or further clarifications about what constitutes application u/s 341 or accumulation u/s 342: Not stated in the document. Interaction with other Parts of the Act beyond the stated sections (e.g., treatment of accumulated funds in later years, restrictions on application, or conditions for approval): Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The enacted text reduces an ambiguity present in the Bill by expressly linking application to section 341 and accumulation to section 342. This reduces interpretive risk about which section governs "application" versus "accumulation". Assessing officers and taxpayers will rely on the separate regimes in sections 341 and 342 to determine whether funds have been validly applied or validly accumulated within the tax year.
      • Calculation mechanics: Taxable regular income is not simply the shortfall from 85% but explicitly 85% of regular income less amounts applied/accumulated in that tax year as per the Part. Practitioners must therefore compute 85% of regular income first, and then subtract qualifying amounts applied/accumulated, rather than, for example, computing net income then applying 85%.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: While the documents do not set forms or procedural requirements, the reliance on sections 341 and 342 implies that documentation showing compliance with those sections will be material to claim nil status or to substantiate deductions from the 85% base. Specific records required: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision establishes a two-step rule: nil taxable regular income when 85% or more of regular income is applied/accumulated for charitable/religious purposes in the tax year; otherwise taxable regular income equals 85% of regular income reduced by applicable applied/accumulated amounts.
      • The enacted text clarifies that "application" is governed by section 341 and "accumulation" by section 342; the Bill's older text was less precise on this point.
      • Computation is anchored to 85% of regular income; amounts applied/accumulated in the same tax year under the Part are then deducted from that 85% figure to arrive at taxable regular income.
      • This drafting clarification reduces interpretive uncertainty between application and accumulation and focuses attention on compliance with sections 341 and 342.
      • Details about definitions, recordkeeping, timing rules, and procedural requirements u/ss 341/342 are not contained in the documents and remain necessary to implement the provision.

      Differences Between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 336 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 336 of the Income-tax Act, 2025
      Reference to application vs accumulationUses the phrase "applied or accumulated u/s 342" in one instance and omits an explicit reference to section 341; this conflates or omits the separate statutory bases for application and accumulation.Uses the phrase "applied as per provisions of section 341 or accumulated u/s 342", explicitly distinguishing application (s.341) from accumulation (s.342).
      ClarityAmbiguous as to which section governs "application".Clear linkage: application -> s.341; accumulation -> s.342.
      Practical impactCreates potential for disputes over whether an amount claimed as "applied" need satisfy s.341 or could be governed by s.342; raises compliance risk and administrative uncertainty.Reduces ambiguity; taxpayers and authorities must assess qualification under the appropriate section (341 or 342), thereby narrowing interpretive disputes and guiding evidence and documentation requirements toward the relevant section.

      Action Points

      • Registered non-profit organisations should review their disbursement and accumulation practices to ensure they meet the conditions of section 341 for application and section 342 for accumulation, because the enacted text expressly ties the tax outcome to compliance with those sections.
      • Tax advisors and in-house counsel should prepare documentation demonstrating that applied or accumulated amounts comply with the relevant section, given that the computation subtracts only amounts applied/accumulated "as per the provisions of this Part".
      • Tax officers should apply the separate tests in sections 341 and 342 when verifying claims u/s 336 rather than treating application and accumulation as governed by a single rule.

      Full Text:

      Section 336 Taxable regular income

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax