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
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.

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