Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. 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 ...
    Case LawsGST
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Case LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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...
    Case LawsGST
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Case LawsGST
    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:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    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
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    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
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    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
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    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
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    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
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    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
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    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
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    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
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    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
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    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
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    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
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    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
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    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
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    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
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    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
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    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
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    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
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
    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

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Comparison of section 337 "Specified 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

      Print Options

      Section 337 Specified income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is Clause 337 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), which defines "specified income" of a registered non-profit organisation and prescribes the tax year in which each category of specified income is taxable. It matters to registered non-profit organisations, tax authorities, and advisers overseeing compliance and application of tax exemptions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 337 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The clause sets out a table enumerating categories of "specified income" of a registered non-profit organisation and prescribes the tax year in which each category is to be taxed. Definitions: The text does not provide standalone definitions for "registered non-profit organisation," "specified income," or other terms beyond the entries in the table. Not stated in the document: legislative purpose, explanatory notes, or effective date.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 337 lists 11 categories of income that qualify as "specified income" for registered non-profit organisations and assigns the taxable year for each category. The categories include: (1) anonymous donations (with an exclusion up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of donations), (2) income applied for benefit of related persons, (3) income applied outside India contrary to section 338(a), (4) investments made contrary to section 350 out of various funds, (5) deemed corpus donations violating section 340 conditions, (6) accumulated income applied to non-charitable/religious purposes, (7) accumulated income ceasing to be set apart for specified purposes u/s 342(1), (8) accumulated income not utilised within the period specified in section 342(1), (9) accumulated income credited or paid to another registered non-profit organisation, (10) income applied to purposes other than those for which the organisation is registered, and (11) income determined by the Assessing Officer u/s 344 in excess of income shown in books of a business undertaking.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a categorized, prescriptive approach: each identified event or failure resulting in income losing its non-taxable character is captured and linked to the tax year when taxation will arise. The text implies a legislative intent to specify distinct triggers for taxation of amounts that otherwise might be treated as exempt or charitable receipts. Specific interpretive guidance (e.g., definitions of "related person" or computation method) is not provided beyond cross-references; where procedural computation is required the clause says "computed in the manner, as prescribed" indicating delegated rules are expected. Not stated in the document: any legislative history or materials explaining the choice of triggers.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains limited carve-outs: the anonymous donation rule excludes donations up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations (whichever is higher) and exempts anonymous donations received by organisations "created or established wholly for religious purposes." No other explicit exceptions or provisos appear in Clause 337. Not stated in the document: any special thresholds for other items, or transitional provisions.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit organisation receives an anonymous donation of Rs.50,000 in a tax year and total donations in that year are Rs.10,00,000. Threshold (Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations = Rs.1,00,000 vs Rs.50,000) - the donation equals Rs.50,000 which is below Rs.1,00,000, so it is excluded from specified income. Not stated in the document: treatment beyond this illustration (e.g., reporting procedure).
      • Example 2: An organisation applies a portion of its income for the benefit of a related person; that portion will be taxable in the tax year in which the application is made, "computed in the manner, as prescribed." Not stated in the document: who is a "related person" or the computation formula.
      • Example 3: An Assessing Officer determines additional income u/s 344 in excess of books for a business undertaking run by the organisation; such income is taxable in the tax year to which that income relates. Not stated in the document: standards of assessment or appeals procedure.

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references other provisions (sections 338(a), 340, 341(1)-(4), 342(1), 344, and 350), indicating reliance on these sections for specifying conduct that will convert otherwise exempt income into taxable specified income. The clause anticipates subordinate legislation by using "as prescribed" for computation. Not stated in the document: text of the referenced sections or the specific rules that will prescribe computations or definitions.

      Differences Between Document 1 (Section 337, Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 337, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version))

      Summary of textual differences and practical impact:

      • Broader exclusion for religious organisations (anonymous donations): Document 1 excludes anonymous donations for organisations "created or established,- (i) wholly for religious purposes, or (ii) wholly for charitable and religious purposes (excluding anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital; or other medical institution run by such registered non-profit organisation)." Document 2 excludes only organisations "created or established wholly for religious purposes."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 provides a narrower exception (it adds a carve-out for organisations "wholly for charitable and religious purposes" but then expressly excludes certain directed donations for educational and medical institutions). This may reduce the number of anonymous donations treated as non-specified income for organisations running both charitable and religious activities, especially where donations are directed to educational or medical institutions.
      • Quantitative phrasing and punctuation differences (anonymous donation threshold): Both versions retain the threshold "up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5%," but Document 1 adds "or 5% of the total donations received by it during the tax year, whichever is higher," while Document 2 uses "or 5% of the such donations received by it during the tax year, whichever is higher."
        • Practical impact: Substantively the threshold appears the same; Document 1's phrasing is slightly clearer by specifying "total donations." No material change to tax effect is apparent.
      • Wording changes re: investments/deposits: Document 1 (items 4 and related) refers to "Any investment or deposit made in contravention to the provisions of section 350," whereas Document 2 refers to "Any investment made in contravention to the provisions of section 350."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 explicitly captures both investments and deposits; Document 2 captures only investments. This broadens the reach in Document 1 to include deposits that may have been omitted previously.
      • Additional items in Document 1 (more entries in the table): Document 1 includes several items absent from Document 2: numbered items 12 and 13 (fair market value of non-specified asset held beyond one year; any deemed application u/s 341(5) not actually applied within the period specified in section 341(6)). Document 2's table ends at item 11.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 expands the list of specified income events, creating additional contingencies where income will be taxed (e.g., failure to hold assets in specified forms/modes, failure to actually apply deemed application amounts abroad/time limits). This increases compliance exposures for registered non-profit organisations.
      • Variation in language for accumulated income utilisation (item 8): Document 1 describes "if it is not applied as per the provisions of section 341(1) to (4) for which it is accumulated or set apart within the period for which it was accumulated or set apart as specified in section 342(1)." Document 2 uses "if it is not utilised for the purpose, for which it is accumulated or set apart within the period for which it was accumulated or set apart as specified in section 342(1)."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 ties the failure to application specifically to sections 341(1)-(4), which may be a clarifying reference to specified modes of application; Document 2 uses broader language "utilised for the purpose." The change narrows the trigger in Document 1 to non-compliance with the procedural application provisions.
      • Formatting and minor drafting clarifications: Document 1 contains more detailed cross-references and slightly different punctuation/wording across multiple clauses (e.g., "computed in the manner, as may be prescribed" vs "computed in the manner, as prescribed").
        • Practical impact: Mainly drafting clarity; limited substantive effect beyond the changes noted above.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Registered non-profit organisations must monitor anonymous donations relative to the stated threshold and ascertain whether donations are directed or truly anonymous; they must also ensure that applications of income (domestic and foreign), investments/deposits, treatment of accumulated income, and use of corpus conform to the referenced sections to avoid specified income classification.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause implies the necessity of records evidencing donor directions, use of funds, dates of application of income, details of investments/deposits (to show compliance with section 350), and documentary evidence supporting any inter-organisation credits or payments. Not stated in the document: exact documentary standards or retention periods.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 337 enumerates 11 categories of "specified income" for registered non-profit organisations and ties each to a specific tax year for taxation.
      • Anonymous donations are partly excluded up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations, and donations to organisations "wholly for religious purposes" are exempt from being specified income under this clause.
      • Several operational failures (application to related persons, investments/deposits contrary to section 350, misuse of accumulated income, failure to meet corpus conditions) convert funds into taxable specified income.
      • The clause delegates computation of certain items ("as prescribed") and relies on other substantive provisions (sections 338, 340, 341, 342, 344, 350), but does not define key terms such as "related person" or set out procedural details.
      • Organisations face increased compliance obligations to track uses of funds, inter-organisational transfers, and investments/deposits to avoid taxation under these triggers.

      Full Text:

      Section 337 Specified income

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔