Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 352 "Tax on accreted 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 352 Tax on accreted income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance 

        The document is Clause 352 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version proposing taxation of "accreted income" of specified persons (principally registered non-profit organisations or similar entities). It matters because it creates a special additional income-tax charge at the maximum marginal rate on accreted income in specified events (cancellation of registration, modification of objects, merger, dissolution, etc.), affecting registered non-profits, their trustees/principal officers and transferees of assets. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 352 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. Context: the clause proposes a special charging provision titled "Tax on accreted income" targeting specified persons when certain triggering events occur (e.g., cancellation/withdrawal of registration, modification of objects inconsistent with registration, failure to apply for registration, conversion, merger, dissolution, and prescribed non-compliances). Coverage includes the specified person and principal officer or trustee; in limited circumstances, asset transferees can be deemed assessee in default. The Bill defines the quantum of accreted income using a formula (A = B - C) where B is aggregate fair market value of total assets on a specified date and C is total liabilities on that date, both to be computed in accordance with prescribed valuation methods. Definitions or detailed scope of "specified person", "specified provision" and "specified assets" are Not stated in the document.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Clause 352 establishes an additional tax for "every specified person" in addition to income-tax on total income, at the maximum marginal rate, in cases enumerated in the Table in sub-section (5). The accreted income is the excess of aggregate fair market value of total assets (B) over total liabilities (C) as on the specified date (A = B - C). The assets and liabilities are to be valued "in accordance with such method of valuation, as prescribed." The accrual is reduced by amounts attributable to specified assets and related liabilities. The person and the principal officer or trustee are liable to pay the tax within 14 days from the due date in column D of the Table or the date of order passed under sub-section (2) - the Bill expressly contemplates that the Assessing Officer will compute accreted income after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order charging such income to tax under sub-section (1).

        Interpretation

        The Bill indicates legislative intent to treat conversion, loss of registration, improper modification of objects, failure to seek registration, disqualifying mergers, and incomplete transfers on dissolution as events triggering a wealth-like charge (an anti-abuse/exit taxation on net assets). The use of fair market value and prescribed valuation methods signals an intent to tax economic accrual rather than book results. The provision of a hearing via the Assessing Officer before charging suggests a procedural safeguard consistent with principles of natural justice in tax assessment.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        No express exceptions or provisos beyond the reduction of accreted income "attributable to specified assets, and liabilities, if any, related to such assets." Specific carve-outs, thresholds or exemptions are Not stated in the document. The Bill does not set out definitions for "specified assets" or detail when and how attribution is to occur - Not stated in the document.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: A registered entity's registration is cancelled; on the date of cancellation, aggregate FMV of assets is 100 and liabilities 30; accreted income A = 70. The AO, after hearing, computes A and an additional tax at maximum marginal rate is levied and payable within 14 days from due date / AO order. (Numerical values illustrative and consistent with the formula; the Bill does not provide numeric examples.)
        • Example 2: A specified person modifies its objects in a tax year to non-conforming objects, applies for fresh registration but is rejected and appeals; the specified date is the date of adoption/modification and payment falls due on receipt of the appellate order confirming cancellation. (The Table entries set the relevant dates and due dates.)

        Interplay

        The Clause cross-refers to other provisions: section 10(23C) first proviso, section 12(1)(ac) and section 332(3) (Table: Sl. No. 3,4,5 or 7). The Bill anticipates prescribed valuation methods - implying subordinate legislation (rules) will be required. The Bill does not mention notifications, circulars or transitional machinery. The interplay with general assessment provisions is explicit via Assessing Officer function; the Bill also states that "all the provisions of this Act shall apply for the collection and recovery of income-tax" indicating use of existing recovery and default mechanisms.

        Differences between the two texts and practical impact

        Comparison of Section 352 (Document 1 - Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 352 (Document 2 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) reveals the following material differences and likely practical impacts:

        • Authority to compute accreted income: Document 2 (Bill, old version) expressly empowers the Assessing Officer to compute accreted income after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard (sub-section (2) of the Bill). Document 1 (enacted Section) omits any express provision vesting computation with the Assessing Officer or the hearing requirement; it directly prescribes the formula and computation by reference to dates and valuation methods.
          • Practical impact: removal of explicit AO role and hearing safeguard may reduce procedural protection for the specified person and centralise computation or leave its administrative locus to rules or practice. If the enacted text is silent, uncertainty arises as to procedural steps prior to charging the additional tax.
        • Cross-reference/placement of table sub-section: The Bill locates the Table in sub-section (5); the enacted Act locates the Table in sub-section (4).
          • Practical impact: purely drafting/ numbering change with no substantive tax effect.
        • Prescription language for valuation methods: The Bill states valuation "as prescribed;" the enacted Section uses "as may be prescribed" (Document 1 uses "as may be prescribed" in sub-section (2)).
          • Practical impact: wording is substantially equivalent - both permit delegated legislation; no significant difference in legal effect.
        • Time of payment where AO passes order: In the Bill, payment is due "within fourteen days from the due date specified in column D of the Table below, or the date of order passed under sub-section (2)." The enacted Section (Document 1) does not include the alternative "or the date of order passed under sub-section (2)" because it lacks an AO-order provision.
          • Practical impact: Bill expressly ties payment timing to AO order; enactment omits that pathway, altering procedural timelines if AO role is not present in enacted text.
        • Minor drafting differences and punctuation/wording: Several clauses show small differences in phrasing, e.g., "computed in accordance with such method of valuation, as prescribed" (Bill) vs "computed in accordance with such method of valuation, as may be prescribed" (Act).
          • Practical impact: negligible substantive difference.
        • Overall structure and sequencing: The Bill contains an express step granting the AO authority and specifying a hearing; the enacted provision removes that explicit adjudicatory step and frames the computation and payment obligations directly on the specified person and principal officer/trustee.
          • Practical impact: substantive procedural change that may affect natural justice guarantees, dispute resolution process, and litigation risk regarding retrospective computation and assessment of accreted income.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: registered non-profit organisations face a potential one-time tax exposure at the maximum marginal rate upon certain adverse events. Key compliance triggers are timely awareness of changes in registration status, modifications to objects, mergers, conversions, failure to apply for registration, and dissolution procedures. Failure to follow prescribed application windows or to transfer assets upon dissolution risks a tax charge.
        • Procedural risk and dispute: because the Bill vests the Assessing Officer with the power to compute accreted income after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, disputes over valuation methodology, asset identification, date of computation and attribution of liabilities will likely arise. The absence of detailed valuation rules in the Clause means reliance on future rules; litigation over valuation standards is foreseeable.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: specified persons should retain contemporaneous records of asset valuations, liabilities, minutes evidencing changes of objects, applications for registration, merger/dissolution documentation and transfer records. The Bill's reliance on FMV and potential AO scrutiny makes documentary support for valuation critical.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 352 creates an additional tax at the maximum marginal rate on "accreted income" measured as FMV of assets less liabilities upon specified triggering events.
        • The Assessing Officer is expressly empowered (in the Bill) to compute accreted income after a hearing and pass an order charging tax; payment is due within 14 days from the table-specified due date or AO order.
        • The provision applies to the specified person and its principal officer/trustee; transferees of assets can be deemed assessee in default in dissolution cases, limited to asset value received.
        • Valuation methods are to be prescribed, but the Bill itself gives no technical valuation guidance or definitions for key terms - delegated legislation will be decisive.
        • Significant procedural and valuation disputes are likely; proper record-keeping and timely procedural steps (applications for registration, transfers on dissolution) are crucial.

        Full Text:

        Section 352 Tax on accreted income

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax