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 LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    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
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    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
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    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
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    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
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    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
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    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
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    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
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    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
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    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
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    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
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    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
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    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
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    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
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    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
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    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
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    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
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    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
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    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
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    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
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    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

      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 ➔