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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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 343 "Deemed accumulated 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 343 Deemed accumulated income.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The provided texts comprise two versions of a statutory provision titled "Deemed accumulated income" dealing with registered non-profit organisations: (a) Clause 343 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and (b) Section 343 as enacted in the Income-tax Act, 2025. They address calculation of a portion of regular income treated as "deemed accumulated income" and prescribe investment/deposit modes. The changes alter the reference points for reductions and slightly modify the obligation to invest. Affected parties are registered non-profit organisations and the tax department; no explicit effective date is stated in the documents.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: both texts are framed as Clause/Section 343 within the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025, and they interact with sections 341, 342 and 350 as referenced. The subject matter is the taxation/administration of income of registered non-profit organisations - specifically a deemed accumulation rule. The documents provide no further definitions or explanatory notes beyond the clause text itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Both versions provide a two-paragraph provision. Core content in the Old Bill (Clause 343) is: (1) The regular income, reduced by the application of income and accumulated income u/s 342, to the extent of 15% of regular income, shall be considered deemed accumulated income and shall be invested or deposited in any of the modes permitted u/s 350; (2) such deemed accumulated income shall not be considered accumulated income for purposes of section 342.
      • The enacted Section 343 alters the text as follows: (1) Regular income is reduced by application of income "as per the provisions of section 341 and accumulated or set apart income u/s 342," to the extent of 15% of regular income, and "where such deemed accumulated income is invested or deposited, it shall be invested or deposited in any of the modes permitted u/s 350"; (2) the same exclusion from section 342 is retained.
      • Coverage: The provision establishes an amount equal to 15% of regular income (subject to stated reductions) as "deemed accumulated income" for registered non-profit organisations, and addresses investment/deposit modalities and non-treatment as accumulated income u/s 342.

      Interpretation

      The texts supply limited interpretive guidance. Legislative intent can only be partially inferred from word choice differences. The Bill's language appears to mandate that the deemed amount "shall be invested or deposited" in modes u/s 350. The enacted section softens that imperative by qualifying it: "where such deemed accumulated income is invested or deposited, it shall be invested or deposited in any of the modes permitted u/s 350." That change suggests a legislative choice to avoid imposing an absolute duty to invest the deemed amount - instead constraining the manner of investment if the amount is in fact invested or deposited. The enacted text also adds an express cross-reference to section 341 regarding "application of income," and inserts the phrase "set apart" when referencing income u/s 342; these additions refine the base from which the 15% is calculated.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No separate provisos, exceptions, thresholds or timing conditions are included in either text beyond the 15% quantification and the exclusion in paragraph (2). No transitional, compliance, or penalty provisions are stated.

      Interplay

      Both texts expressly cross-refer to sections 341, 342 and 350. The Bill text references only section 342 for reductions and section 350 for investment modes. The enacted section explicitly references section 341 for "application of income" and expands the description of section 342 to include "accumulated or set apart income." The enactment conditions the requirement to use modes u/s 350 on an actual investment/deposit taking place. The documents do not quote sections 341, 342 or 350; thus specifics of those interactions beyond the referral language are not stated in the documents.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The Bill's mandatory language ("shall be invested or deposited...") imposes a clear duty to invest the deemed 15% in section 350 modes, potentially exposing organisations to compliance risk if they do not invest. The enacted wording shifts to a conditional statement, which may reduce the risk of finding a formal failure strictly on the basis that the deemed amount was not invested, while still restricting allowable investment modes where an organisation does invest or deposit the amount. This is a material compliance distinction for administrators and practitioners assessing mandatory obligations versus permitted actions.
      • Calculation base: The enacted addition of section 341 as a reduction point and the express inclusion of "set apart" income u/s 342 clarifies (relative to the Bill) the items that reduce the regular income before applying the 15% test. This narrows uncertainty about whether application u/s 341 reduces the base for deemed accumulated income; under the enacted text, it explicitly does. Practitioners will need to consult section 341 and section 342 to determine which amounts are deductible for computing the 15% base.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the provision's focus on application/set-aside and investment/deposit, organisations should maintain contemporaneous records documenting (a) amounts applied pursuant to section 341, (b) amounts accumulated or set apart u/s 342, (c) the computation of the 15% deemed amount, and (d) evidence of any investment/deposit and the mode used (to show compliance with section 350 if an investment/deposit occurs). The documents do not specify particular forms or timelines for such records, so general good record-keeping is implied but not mandated in the text.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts create a deemed accumulated income equal to 15% of regular income subject to certain reductions and exclude that deemed amount from the operation of section 342.
      • The Old Bill mandated that the deemed amount "shall be invested or deposited" in modes u/s 350; the enacted section qualifies that requirement by making the section 350 constraint applicable "where such deemed accumulated income is invested or deposited."
      • The enacted text expressly references section 341 and refers to "accumulated or set apart income" u/s 342 as reductions, whereas the Bill referenced only section 342 in the reduction context.
      • The enacted change narrows the instances in which an absolute investment duty can be asserted and clarifies the deduction base, affecting compliance obligations and potential challenges.
      • No procedural, effective date, penalty, or illustrative examples are provided in either document; these details are "Not stated in the document."

      Differences between the Provisions and Practical Impact

      • Textual difference on reduction of regular income: Bill - "reduced by the application of income and accumulated income u/s 342"; Act - "reduced by the application of income as per the provisions of section 341 and accumulated or set apart income u/s 342."
        • Practical impact: The Act clarifies that application u/s 341 affects the base and expressly captures amounts "set apart" u/s 342, reducing ambiguity about what reduces regular income for the 15% calculation. Practitioners must therefore examine both sections 341 and 342 to compute the base accurately.
      • Obligation to invest/deposit: Bill - mandatory phrasing ("shall be invested or deposited in any of the modes permitted u/s 350"); Act - conditional phrasing ("where such deemed accumulated income is invested or deposited, it shall be invested or deposited in any of the modes permitted u/s 350").
        • Practical impact: The Bill creates a clearer, potentially enforceable duty to invest the deemed amount in specified modes, increasing compliance exposure. The Act appears to limit enforcement to cases where an investment/deposit actually occurs, allowing for circumstances where the deemed amount may remain uninvested without triggering the specific investment-mode requirement (though tax consequences from non-investment, if any, are not stated).
      • Terminology refinement: Act adds "set apart" and cross-references section 341; Bill lacks those specific descriptors.
        • Practical impact: Semantic refinement can alter scope of deductible/offset amounts and may affect disputes over what constitutes "accumulated" versus "set apart" income; the Act's explicit language reduces interpretive disputes by calling attention to both concepts.

      Action Points

      • Review and apply sections 341 and 342 to calculate the reduction base before computing the 15% deemed accumulated income (Act text requires consideration of section 341; Bill text does not expressly do so).
      • Maintain detailed records documenting any application, accumulation, or set-aside of income and the computation of the deemed 15% amount, and evidence of any investment/deposit and the mode used u/s 350, since the statute conditions acceptable modes on a deposit/investment occurring.
      • Where an organisation intends to invest/deposit the deemed amount, ensure the chosen mode aligns with section 350; if uncertain, consult section 350 text (not provided here) for permitted instruments.
      • Monitor whether authorities treat failure to invest the deemed amount as a breach in light of the enacted conditional language; the documents contain no penalty or remedial mechanism, therefore "Not stated in the document."

      Full Text:

      Section 343 Deemed accumulated income.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax