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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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 353 "Other violations." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      12 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 353 Other violations

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 353 (Income-tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version and Section 353, Income-tax Act, 2025) prescribes tax consequences for registered non-profit organisations that commit specified procedural or substantive violations. It identifies when regular income becomes taxable and prescribes the limited expenditure that may be deducted in computing taxable regular income. Affected parties: registered non-profit organisations and the revenue department. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 353 operates in the field of the Income-tax legislation and cross-refers expressly to sections 334, 338, 346, 347, 348, 349 and 35(b)(i). Context: The provision addresses "other violations" by registered non-profit organisations and prescribes tax treatment where certain compliance failures or prohibited activities occur during a tax year. Coverage: registered non-profit organisations that (a) fail to maintain books u/s 347, (b) fail to get books audited u/s 348, (c) fail to furnish returns u/s 349, or (d) carry out a commercial activity in contravention of section 346 while carrying out advancement of other object(s) of general public utility. Definitions/explanations: The text does not supply separate definitions beyond its cross-references. Not stated in the document: any legislative history, purpose statement, or definition of terms like "commercial activity" beyond the cross-reference to section 346.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The core structure is as follows:

      • Sub-section (1) - Events: If during a tax year a registered non-profit organisation commits any of the listed failures or contravenes section 346 by carrying out a commercial activity while advancing other objects of general public utility, "its regular income for such tax year as reduced by the expenditure referred to in sub-section (3)" shall become taxable regular income chargeable u/s 334.
      • Sub-section (2) - Specified and residual income: Specified income and residual income of the registered non-profit organisation which are not included under sub-section (1) are also chargeable to tax u/s 334. The Bill states this is "in addition to" the tax under sub-section (1) and that section 338 does not apply; the Act states that the provision operates "irrespective of the provisions of section 338."
      • Sub-section (3) - Permitted expenditure: Sets out conditions under which expenditure is to be recognised in computing the reducible amount of regular income in sub-section (1). Conditions include (in one version) an express ban on capital expenditure and a list of disallowances (e.g., not from corpus, not from loans, depreciation claims limitations, not contributions to persons, payments contravening section 36 subsections, and allowance u/s 35(b)(i)).
      • Sub-section (4) (Act) - No other set off/deduction: The Act explicitly provides that no set off or deduction or allowance other than those in sub-section (3) shall be allowed.

      Interpretation

      The textual design shows a legislative intent to impose tax consequences on non-profits that either fail procedural compliance (books, audit, return) or cross statutory activity boundaries (commercial activity contravening section 346). The provision converts "regular income" into taxable regular income in such years, while permitting a narrow catalogue of expenditure to reduce the taxable amount. The separate treatment of specified and residual income indicates the statute intends to capture all income streams of a non-profit that fall outside permitted treatment, notwithstanding any special provisions in section 338.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The statute creates limited exceptions in favour of the organisation in computing taxable regular income: only expenditure that satisfies the conditions listed in sub-section (3) is allowable. These include expenditure being incurred in India, for the objects of the organisation, not from the corpus as of the end of the preceding tax year, not out of loans or borrowings, with restrictions on depreciation claims and payments to persons in contravention of section 36(4)-(7), and allowance conditions u/s 35(b)(i). In the Bill the express statement "capital expenditure shall not be allowed" appears as a stand-alone clause; in the Act that exclusion is incorporated by the phrase "other than capital expenditure" in the opening of sub-section (3). Not stated in the document: any thresholds, procedures for proving eligibility, or remedial opportunities for the non-profit (e.g., opportunity to rectify defaults) beyond the textual conditions.

      Illustrations

      • Hypothetical 1: A registered non-profit fails to file its return for tax year X and has regular income of Rs. 10 lac. Under sub-section (1) the organisation's regular income, reduced only by qualifying expenditure per sub-section (3), becomes taxable regular income chargeable u/s 334. Not stated in the document: specific tax rate or computation mechanics u/s 334.
      • Hypothetical 2: A registered non-profit carries out a commercial activity contravening section 346 and earns income from that activity that is classified as specified income. If that specified income is not covered by sub-section (1), sub-section (2) renders it chargeable u/s 334 irrespective of section 338. Not stated in the document: how specified/residual incomes are to be apportioned for mixed activities.

      Interplay

      The text expressly interacts with sections 334 (chargeability of tax), 338 (excluded or special treatment), 346 (commercial activity limits), 347-349 (obligations on books/audit/return), 35(b)(i) (allowability of particular payments), and 36(4)-(7) (payments to persons). The Act's language emphasises that section 338 is to be disregarded for incomes captured under sub-section (2) (or "irrespective of" section 338), signalling an intention to prevent special protective mechanisms elsewhere from defeating taxation here. Not stated in the document: any rules, circulars, or clarifying guidance explaining application where multiple provisions overlap.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Placement of prohibition on capital expenditure and set-off: The Bill (Clause 353, Old Version) expressly lists "capital expenditure shall not be allowed" as clause (a) within the computation conditions in sub-section (3), and places the prohibition on set off/deduction as clause (j) within the same sub-section. The enacted Section 353 shifts wording: sub-section (3) begins by saying expenditure referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the expenditure incurred in India (other than capital expenditure) - thereby embedding the capital-expenditure exclusion in the main description - and moves the prohibition on set off/deduction/allowance to a separate sub-section (4).
        • Practical impact: Functionally the same restrictions appear to remain, but the Act's re-structuring separates the list of qualifying expenditure from the rule disallowing other set offs/deductions, which may affect statutory reading and drafting clarity.
      • Sub-section (2) wording and emphasis: The Bill states that "In addition to the tax referred to in sub-section (1), the specified income and residual income ... shall also be chargeable ... to the extent not covered ... and the provisions of section 338 shall not apply." The Act states: "Irrespective of the provisions of section 338, any the specified income and residual income ... which is not included in sub-section (1) shall also be chargeable ..."
        • Practical impact: Both aim to subject specified and residual incomes to tax in addition to sub-section (1) amounts and to neutralise section 338, but the Act's phrasing places a direct emphasis on disregarding section 338; the functional result appears substantially similar, though drafting differences could influence interpretive emphasis in disputes.
      • Minor drafting and typographical differences: The Act contains a minor typographical insertion ("any the specified income") and reorders certain clauses (e.g., clause reference to section 35(b)(i) remains but appears as (h) in the Act).
        • Practical impact: No substantive alteration of substantive conditions is evident from the text provided; differences are primarily structural and stylistic.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Registered non-profit organisations face direct tax exposure where they fail to maintain books, secure an audit, file returns, or engage in prohibited commercial activity. The provision narrows allowable deductions, increasing effective taxable base risk in non-compliance years.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The statute highlights the primacy of expenditure "incurred in India," "for the objects of the registered non-profit," and not from corpus or borrowings. Organisations should, therefore, maintain clear contemporaneous records proving the source of funds, purpose of expenditure, location of expenditure, and depreciation claims, though procedural requirements for proof are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 353 targets both procedural failures (books, audit, returns) and substantive violation (commercial activity contrary to section 346) by registered non-profits and converts regular income into taxable regular income for the tax year of violation.
      • Specified and residual incomes not covered under the taxable regular income provision are also taxed u/s 334, and the provision disfavors the application of section 338.
      • The statute permits only a narrow class of expenditures to reduce taxable regular income; capital expenditure and certain categories of payments are excluded.
      • The Act restructured certain clauses from the Bill (notably repositioning the capital expenditure exclusion and the prohibition on other set offs/deductions), with no clear substantive relaxation or extension shown in the text provided.
      • Organisations must maintain documentation showing source and nature of expenditures, but specific procedural proofs or remedial mechanisms are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 353 Other violations

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax