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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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 351 "Specified violation." 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 351 Specified violation.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These texts set out Clause/Section 351 dealing with "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation under the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025. They matter because they prescribe grounds and procedure for cancellation of registration of non-profit organisations and thus affect taxpayers (registered non-profit entities), tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and Assessing Officers), and the broader charitable sector. Effective/commencement dates: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 351 appears in Part IV (Violations) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 / Income-tax Act, 2025. The provision addresses "specified violation" by a registered non-profit organisation and grants the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner power to inquire, call for documents, and pass orders including cancellation of registration. Definitions or extended explanations of terms used (e.g., "registered non-profit organisation", "objects", "commercial activity", or cross-referenced sections 332, 345, 346, 270(13)) are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision enumerates specified violations by a registered non-profit organisation, namely:

      • application of income otherwise than for its objects;
      • carrying out commercial activity in contravention of section 345 or 346 (enacted) / section 345 (Bill);
      • application of any part of total income for private religious purposes which does ensure/enure for the benefit of the public;
      • post-commencement organisations for charitable purpose applying income for benefit of particular religious community or caste other than SCs/STs or backward classes or women and children;
      • activities that are not genuine or not carried out in accordance with registration conditions;
      • non-compliance with requirements of other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and where the order/direction/decree is either undisputed or final;
      • false or incorrect information in the application referred to in section 332(1).

      Procedure: Where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has noticed one or more specified violations, receives a reference from the Assessing Officer u/s 270(13), or the organisation is selected per Board-formulated risk strategy, the officer shall call for documents/inquiries, and then pass an order in writing either cancelling registration (after reasonable opportunity of being heard) for such tax year and subsequent years if satisfied violation occurred, or not cancelling if not so satisfied; copy to AO and organisation. Timeline: order to be passed within six months calculated from end of quarter in which first notice was issued calling for documents/inquiry.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by text: the provision aims to create a statutory mechanism to protect the tax base by identifying specified breaches by non-profit organisations and providing a structured administrative route for cancellation of registration, incorporating procedural safeguards (opportunity of being heard, timelines). The text signals an intent to link tax-registration consequences to both internal misapplication of funds and external non-compliance with other laws.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs or conditions in the text include:

      • Cancellation is to be preceded by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
      • Non-compliance under other laws is actionable only where the order/direction/decree "has either not been disputed, or has attained finality" (enacted text).
      • Specific temporal limitation on decision-making: order must be passed within six months from quarter-end of first notice.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit uses grants to pay director's personal expenses - this falls under clause (a) (application other than for objects) and can trigger inquiry and potential cancellation if established. (Facts consistent with text.)
      • Example 2: A post-commencement charitable organisation awards scholarships exclusively to a single non-protected religious community (not SC/ST/backward classes/women/children) - under clause (d) this could be a specified violation. (Facts consistent with text.)
      • Example 3: A registered non-profit running a business arm in contravention of section 346 (enacted) would fall under clause (b) and could be subject to cancellation proceedings. (Facts consistent with text.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to sections 345, 346, 332(7)/(7)(a), 332(1), and 270(13). Specific interaction with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document. The provision situates administrative power with Principal Commissioner/Commissioner while involving Assessing Officer by reference and communication; how this aligns with broader registration/renewal procedures or appeal remedies is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to section 345/346 (commercial activity): Old Bill (Document 2) lists contravention only of section 345; the enacted Section 351 (Document 1) lists contravention of the provisions of section 345 or 346.
        • Practical impact: expansion of trigger-more commercial-activity-related conduct (covered in section 346) can now constitute a specified violation, increasing exposure to cancellation for NGOs engaged in commercial activities that fall within section 346.
      • Wording on timing/temporal scope of cancellation: Old Bill states cancellation may be "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place and all subsequent tax years." Enacted Section omits the phrase "for such tax year during which such specified violation took place," instead providing cancellation "for such tax year and all subsequent tax years."
        • Practical impact: enacted text is arguably broader or at least less temporally precise; it appears to allow cancellation beginning with the relevant tax year (same as Bill) but the slight drafting change reduces explicit limitation language-practically similar but drafting difference could affect interpretation of retrospective/prospective reach if disputes arise.
      • Reference to compliance with other laws (section 332(7)): Old Bill refers to "requirements u/s 332(7)"; enacted Section refers to "requirements of any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a) and the order, direction or decree... has either not been disputed, or has attained finality."
        • Practical impact: enacted provision clarifies that the non-compliance is with "any other law as referred u/s 332(7)(a)" (narrower/clarified cross-reference) and adds explicit textual emphasis that the order/direction/decree must either be undisputed or final. This makes the ground for cancellation contingent on a final/undisputed determination under those other laws.
      • Typographical/word choice correction: Enacted Section corrects "enure" to "ensure" (via corrigenda).
        • Practical impact: corrects potential ambiguity in clause (c) regarding private religious purposes "which does ensure for the benefit of the public" (document shows correction but intended meaning remains that such private religious application must not ensure public benefit). Substance unaffected except removal of typographical error.
      • Minor drafting/formatting differences: Enacted provision adds subparagraph labeling and slightly reorders phrasing (e.g., subsection (2)(a) temporal phrase "Where,--" vs Bill's "Where during any tax year,--").
        • Practical impact: no substantive change except possible differences in interpretive emphasis on temporal locus of detection; enacted text's condition list in (2) is substantively the same but more tightly cross-referenced in some places.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: strict internal compliance with objects and permitted uses of income; careful structuring of any commercial activities to avoid contravention of sections 345/346; avoidance of private-religious-purpose applications that do not benefit the public; adherence to registration conditions; ensure accuracy of initial registration application (section 332(1)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: documentary evidence of application of income to objects, minutes/authorisations for activities, contracts and accounts for commercial activities, demonstration of public benefit for religious activities, evidence of compliance with other laws (and any orders/directions) and dispute status thereof, and documentation submitted in registration application-since false/incorrect application information is a specified violation.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause/Section 351 lists seven discrete grounds that may constitute a "specified violation" leading to cancellation of registration of a registered non-profit organisation.
      • Enacted text expands commercial-activity trigger to include contravention of section 346 in addition to section 345, broadening potential exposure.
      • Cancellation can be ordered by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner after inquiry and hearing, and must be communicated to the Assessing Officer and organisation.
      • Non-compliance under other laws is actionable where the external order/direction/decree is undisputed or final, per enacted text.
      • Administrative timeline: order must be passed within six months from the quarter-end of the first notice calling for documents/inquiry.
      • Accuracy of registration application is critical-false or incorrect information is an explicit ground for specified violation.
      • Certain drafting differences between Bill and Act (e.g., reference to section 346 and clarified cross-reference to section 332(7)(a)) may have practical consequences for scope and enforcement.

      Full Text:

      Section 351 Specified violation.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax