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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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