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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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