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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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