Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax