Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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