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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 354 "Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii)." 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 354 Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii).

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 354 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version sets out the statutory scheme for applications by registered non-profit organisations or specified persons for approval u/s 133(1)(b)(ii) (approval relevant to receipt of donations). It matters to charitable organisations, donors and tax authorities because approval enables donor deduction treatment under the linked provision. The Bill sets eligibility conditions, timelines for application and orders, procedural safeguards and validity periods for approvals. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 354 is drafted for the purpose of obtaining approval for application of section 133(1)(b)(ii) (as referenced in the heading). The provision governs who may apply (a registered non-profit organisation or a person referred to in Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1)), the conditions for eligibility, procedural stages for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, timelines for applications and orders, and the period of validity of approvals. The text contains no defined terms other than references to "tax year," "registered non-profit organisation," and the referenced Schedule III; definitions of those terms are Not stated in the document. The Bill prescribes that forms, manner, statements, verifications, certificates to donors and correction statements shall be "prescribed" but the prescriptive instruments themselves are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 354 permits a registered non-profit organisation or a person listed in Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1) to apply to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for approval for the purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii). The authority for application, the form and manner are to be as prescribed. The clause sets out seven express conditions (clauses (a) to (g)) that the applicant must satisfy or comply with:

      • (a) the organisation's activities are not expressed to benefit any particular religious community or caste;
      • (b) it is established in India for a charitable purpose and "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature";
      • (c) no instrument or rules allow transfer of whole or part of assets for any purpose other than a charitable purpose;
      • (d) it maintains regular accounts of receipts and expenditure;
      • (e) it prepares and delivers a prescribed statement for prescribed periods, in prescribed form and verified manner, within prescribed time, to the prescribed income-tax authority or an authorised person;
      • (f) it delivers correction statements for rectification or updating of the statement required under (e), in prescribed form and verified manner;
      • (g) it furnishes a certificate to the donor specifying the donation amount within a prescribed period from date of receipt, containing requisite particulars in the prescribed manner.

      Timelines and validity: Sub-section (2) contains a five-row Table specifying application time limits, time for the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to pass orders, and the validity period of approval, distinguishing cases where activities have commenced, where activities have not commenced, provisional approvals, and expiry/renewal situations. The Table prescribes: provisional approvals for new applicants (three tax years), approvals for applicants with commenced activities (five tax years), and specific application windows and order timelines (one month for the month-end case; six months from end of quarter in other cases).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The structure indicates an intent to balance facilitation of charitable funding (by providing a route to obtain approval relevant for donor deduction) with safeguards to ensure charitable character and compliance with other laws. The enumerated conditions focus on: non-discrimination by religion/caste; confinement of assets to charitable purposes; limits on religious expenditure; maintenance and submission of accurate accounts and statements; and donor-level certification. The procedural timeframe table suggests an intent to provide predictability in administrative processing. The text does not contain an express legislative statement of purpose or policy rationale beyond these provisions.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No separate provisos or exceptions beyond the specified conditions and the Table are included in Clause 354. There are no express carve-outs for particular categories of organisations, acute exigencies, or definitions of "religious nature" expenditure. Any exceptions or further qualifying language is Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit which has not commenced activities applies during the tax year from which it seeks approval; the authority must pass an order within "One months from the end of the month in which application is made" and, if provisional approval is granted, the approval is valid for "Three tax years commencing from the tax year in which such application is made." (This example follows the Table text.)
      • Example 2: A registered non-profit whose activities have commenced applies at any time during the tax year from which approval is sought; the authority has six months from the end of the quarter in which application is made to pass an order; if approved the validity is five tax years commencing from that tax year. (Derived directly from the Table.)
      • Example 3: An organisation incurs religious-nature expenditure equal to 5% of total income in a tax year. Under clause (b) its status is affected because clause (b) provides it "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more..."-therefore, an organisation with exactly 5% religious expenditure would be ineligible. (The document does not provide a worked example; this is a textual reading of clause (b).)

      Interplay

      The clause refers to section 133(1)(b)(ii) as the substantive hook for approval but does not reproduce that section or explain the precise consequence of approval under that section. The clause references compliance "of such requirements of any other law in force" but does not specify which laws or how conflicts are to be resolved. The clause requires prescribed forms, statements and donor certificates but the relevant Rules or Notifications prescribing them are Not stated in the document. Interaction with income-tax assessment procedures, charitable trust law, the applicable Schedules (Schedule III), or other regulatory regimes is not elaborated in the text.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to Schedule: Document 1 (Section 354, Income-tax Act, 2025) refers to "Schedule VII (Table: Sl. No. 1)"; Document 2 (Clause 354, Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) refers to "Schedule III (Table: Sl. No. 1)".
        • Practical impact: This change alters which classes of persons fall within the eligibility reference. The precise practical effect depends on the contents of the respective Schedules; those listed in Schedule III will differ from those in Schedule VII, so an entity's eligibility to apply may be expanded or narrowed depending on which Schedule applies. The document does not state the contents of either Schedule.
      • Religious-expenditure threshold wording: Document 1 states the applicant "does not incur any expenditure of an amount exceeding 5% of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature." Document 2 states the applicant "does not incur any expenditure of an amount being 5% or more of its total income during a tax year which is of a religious nature."
        • Practical impact: The two phrasings create different inclusive/exclusive thresholds. Document 1 prohibits expenditure that exceeds 5% (i.e., expenditure >5% is prohibited; expenditure equal to 5% appears permissible). Document 2 prohibits expenditure that is "5% or more" (i.e., expenditure >=5% is prohibited). This is a material drafting difference: under Document 2 an organisation whose religious-nature expenditure equals exactly 5% of total income would be ineligible; under Document 1 that organisation would appear eligible. The documents do not provide further clarifying definitions or examples.
      • Minor drafting differences in procedural wording: The order and phrasing in sub-section (3) differ slightly. Document 2 frames the inquiries as being "in order to satisfy himself as to the compliance of such requirements of any other law in force, as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects, and the genuineness of activities," with an explicit conjunctive linking; Document 1 lists genuineness and compliance first then continues.
        • Practical impact: These are drafting variations that change emphasis but, on their face, not the substantive standard-the authority must be satisfied as to genuineness and compliance. Absent further context or definitions, the operational test remains similar. The document does not state any interpretive guidance about how these differences should be resolved.
      • Other variations: Minor differences (for example "as prescribed" versus "as may be prescribed") are present.
        • Practical impact: These appear stylistic and do not, by themselves in the provided text, change substantive rights or obligations. The document does not state any consequential administrative guidance.

      Practical Implications

      • Eligibility screening: Applicants must ensure they satisfy the seven listed conditions. In particular, the religious-expenditure metric ("5% or more") is a hard threshold in the text and can render otherwise qualifying organisations ineligible if religious spending equals or exceeds that proportion. Organisations should carefully compute and document the nature of expenditures to demonstrate compliance with clause (b). The document does not provide a methodology for such calculation.
      • Record-keeping and reporting: Clauses (d), (e) and (f) require maintenance of regular accounts and submission (and correction) of prescribed statements. This creates clear record-keeping obligations; the precise contents, form, timing and verification procedures are to be prescribed and are Not stated in the document. The requirement to furnish donor certificates (clause (g)) imposes an administrative obligation on the recipient organisation.
      • Timelines for administrative action: The Table sets finite time windows for applicants to file and for the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to decide; applicants should plan filings to avoid missed windows, especially on expiry/renewal scenarios where advance filings (at least six months) are mandated.
      • Risk of rejection/cancellation: Sub-section (3) allows the authority to call for documents and make inquiries; if not satisfied, it may reject an application (and in some cases cancel approval). The clause provides procedural fairness by requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejection, but the operational scope of inquiries and what constitutes satisfaction is Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 354 provides a statutory route for registered non-profits or specified persons to obtain approval relevant to donations u/s 133(1)(b)(ii).
      • Seven express eligibility and compliance conditions cover non-discrimination, charitable purpose, restrictions on asset transfer, accounts, prescribed statements, correction mechanisms and donor certificates.
      • The provision sets distinct application windows, decision timeframes and validity periods (three or five tax years, depending on circumstances) in a five-row Table.
      • Clause (b) contains a strict threshold on "religious-nature" expenditure-"5% or more" of total income-which can render organisations ineligible even if expenditure equals exactly 5%.
      • The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has inquiry powers and may approve, reject or (where applicable) cancel approvals, but must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejection.
      • Many operational details (definitions, prescribed forms, calculation rules, content of Schedules, and applicable other laws) are left to prescription or are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 354 Application for approval for purpose of section 133(1)(b)(ii).

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax