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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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 341 "Application of 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 341 Application of income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Clause 341 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out what constitutes permissible application of income by registered non-profit organisations. It matters to charitable/religious trusts and registered non-profit organisations, and to tax authorities monitoring compliance with application-of-income conditions. Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hook: Clause 341 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) addressing "Application of income" of a registered non-profit organisation. Context: governs what sums may be treated as application of income for non-profit organisations to ascertain compliance with conditions for tax treatment. Coverage: sums applied for charitable/religious purposes in India, donations to other registered non-profits, corpus donations, reinvestment of corpus in permitted modes u/s 350, repayment of loans/borrowings, and exclusions. Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document beyond references to sections 35(b)(i), 36(4)-(7), and section 350.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Clause 341, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out what sums are to be allowed as "application of income" to a registered non-profit organisation. The provision identifies three categories in sub-section (1): (a) sums applied for charitable or religious purposes in India for which the organisation is registered (subject to payment during the tax year and allowability under specified sections), (b) 85% of donations made to other registered non-profit organisations, and (c) nil with respect to corpus donations to other registered non-profit organisations. Sub-section (2) includes reinvestments into permitted corpus modes and repayments of loans/borrowings within five years (subject to conditions including no prior violation and application post 31 March 2021) as application of income. Sub-section (3) excludes from application: depreciation/allowances claimed in respect of an asset acquisition already treated as application of income and set off/allowance of excess application from prior years. Sub-section (4) states that application from corpus, loan/borrowing, accumulated income, specified income or deemed accumulated income shall not be considered as application for the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (2).

        Interpretation

        The text links the concept of "application of income" to both timing (payment during the tax year) and substantive allowability u/ss 36(4)-(7) and 35(b)(i). Legislative intent apparent from the text is to restrict qualifying applications to sums that are both paid and allowable under income tax rules, and to avoid treating corpus transfers as qualifying applications. The Bill articulates a cross-reference approach whereby existing tax-law tests (sections 35 and 36 provisions) determine allowability. The inclusion of a prescribed percentage treatment for donations to other registered organisations (85%) indicates a legislative policy to permit a substantial portion of inter-charity donations to count as application while retaining a residual disallowance (15%).

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Explicit exceptions in the Bill text: corpus donations to other registered non-profit organisations are treated as nil for application purposes. Sub-section (3) excludes depreciation/allowances already claimed and set off of earlier excess applications. Sub-section (4) excludes application from corpus, loan/borrowing, accumulated income, specified income or deemed accumulated income for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2). There are conditional provisos in sub-section (2) requiring reinvestment or repayment within five years and that the original application from corpus or loan/borrowing be post-31 March 2021 and compliant with the Part.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1 - Direct application: A registered trust pays Rs. 1,000,000 during the tax year for a charitable program for which it is registered, and the payment is allowable u/ss 36(4)-(7) and 35(b)(i). That sum would qualify as application of income under sub-section (1)(a).
        • Example 2 - Donation to another registered organisation: A registered society donates Rs. 100,000 to another registered society. Under sub-section (1)(b), 85% (i.e. Rs. 85,000) would count as application of income; under sub-section (1)(c) corpus components would count as nil if the payment is a corpus donation.
        • Example 3 - Reinvestment from corpus: Not stated in the document whether a trust that re-invests corpus within five years will satisfy other procedural prerequisites beyond those listed; the Bill requires reinvestment within five years and that the original corpus application be after 31-03-2021 with no violations. Specific permitted modes are referred to section 350 (modes) but details of those modes are Not stated in the document.

        Interplay

        The clause expressly refers to and depends upon sections 35(b)(i), 36(4)-(7) and section 350 for determining allowable payments and permitted modes of investment. It also cross-refers to "this Part" and corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for compliance history. Specific rules, notifications or circulars beyond these textual cross-references are Not stated in the document.

        Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

        • Explicit treatment of corpus donations paid to other organisations:

          • Bill (Clause 341, Document 2): sub-clause (1)(c) expressly states "nil, with respect to any sum paid as a corpus donation to any other registered non-profit organisation."
          • Act (Section 341, Document 1): sub-section (3)(c) provides that "any sum paid as a corpus donation to any other registered non-profit organisation" shall not be allowed as application of income (i.e., it is listed among claims not allowed).
          Practical impact: Both texts in effect disallow treating corpus donations to other registered entities as application of income, but the Bill states the position as a component of what is allowed (explicitly allowing "nil"), while the Act lists it among exclusions. Substance is similar; the Bill's expression is potentially clearer as a standalone rule, whereas the Act's placement in exclusions may be read as reinforcing general illegibility for application treatment.
        • Order and wording of paid sums qualifying as application:

          • Bill (Document 2): sub-section (1)(a) requires the sum be "paid during such tax year" and "such payment is allowable u/ss 36(4), (5), (6) and (7) and 35(b)(i)."
          • Act (Document 1): sub-section (1)(a) provides similar requirements but phrases them as "where such sum is paid during the tax year provided that the provisions of section 35(b)(i) and section 36(4), (5), (6), and (7) shall apply in respect of such sum."
          Practical impact: No substantive difference in the qualifying conditions; the Act's language places emphasis on the applicability of the identified sections, while the Bill is more prescriptive that payment during the year and allowability under those sections are required. Both link allowability u/ss 35/36 to qualification as application.
        • Deemed application (85% rule and deemed application mechanics):

          • Bill (Document 2): does not contain provisions comparable to Section 341(5)-(8) of the Act concerning the 85% of regular income requirement, shortfall treatment as deemed application, timing for application of deemed application, and exercise of option.
          • Act (Document 1): contains sub-sections (5)-(8) establishing an 85% regular income normative target, permitting registered organisations to elect to treat shortfall as deemed application, specifying timing rules for application, and prescribing exercise of option on or before the due date u/s 263(1) for furnishing return of income.
          Practical impact: The Act introduces a compliance mechanism (85% of regular income) and a deemed application regime with procedural timings. The Bill version lacks this constructive mechanism; therefore, under the Bill an organisation's failure to apply regular income to the extent of 85% would not be remedied by deeming (unless other provisions exist elsewhere). The Act increases formal compliance burdens and provides a remedy (option) to treat shortfall as application within specific timelines; omission from the Bill means those procedural obligations/benefits are not present in the Bill text as reproduced.
        • Capital gains treated as application:

          • Bill (Document 2): contains no counterpart to the Act's sub-sections (9) and (10) dealing with capital gains from transfer of capital assets held for charitable or religious purposes and definitions such as "appropriate fraction," "cost of transferred asset," and "net consideration."
          • Act (Document 1): specifies when capital gains on transfers of trust property are deemed application (full or fractional amounts) and provides definitions for key terms used in that analysis.
          Practical impact: The Act creates a clear statutory rule treating certain capital gains as application of income when proceeds are reinvested in qualifying capital assets; the Bill lacks such rules, leaving potential ambiguity regarding tax treatment of capital gains arising to trusts. The Act's rules may aid in tax neutrality for reinvestment of trust assets; absent that, the Bill would leave organisations reliant on other provisions or administrative guidance.
        • Express exclusions and structuring differences:

          • Bill (Document 2): The exclusions list in sub-section (3) comprises clauses (a) and (b) (depreciation/allowance previously claimed as application; set off of excess application), but does not include clause (c) of the Act (which there is included in Act sub-section (3)(c)).
          • Act (Document 1): explicitly includes three exclusions (a), (b), (c) in sub-section (3), making the treatment of corpus donations as excluded clearer within the exclusions list.
          Practical impact: The Act's exclusions list is more exhaustive. The Bill's omission (as presented) could cause interpretive uncertainty until clarified by other provisions or parliamentary amendments.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: The requirement that payments be "paid during such tax year" and be allowable under the cross-referenced sections imposes evidentiary and timing burdens on registered non-profit organisations to substantiate payments and their tax allowability. The 85% rule for donations to other registered entities creates a mathematical step for accounting and tax reporting; organisations must track whether payments are corpus or non-corpus to determine whether 85% or nil applies.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: Organisations will need contemporaneous payment evidence (ledgers, bank payment instruments), documentation demonstrating allowability u/ss 35/36, clear characterisation of donations as corpus or revenue, and records of repayments or reinvestments into permitted modes (section 350) within five-year periods where applicable. The Bill's five-year windows and post-31-03-2021 condition require maintenance of historical compliance records showing no violations.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 341 defines what counts as application of income for registered non-profit organisations, linking allowability to sections 35 and 36 and to timing of payment.
        • Donations to other registered organisations are partly recognised (85%) except corpus donations which are expressly treated as nil.
        • Reinvestment into permitted corpus modes and repayment of loans may be treated as application if made within five years and subject to compliance conditions and post-31-03-2021 applicability.
        • Certain claims (depreciation/allowances already claimed as application; set off of earlier excess application) are excluded from being treated as application.
        • The clause depends on other provisions (sections 35, 36 and 350) for definitions and modalities; practical compliance requires careful recordkeeping.
        • Compared with the enacted Section 341, the Bill (old version) omits the deemed-application (85% regular income) mechanism and capital-gains-deemed-application rules present in the Act.

        Full Text:

        Section 341 Application of income

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax