Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 511 "Furnishing of report in respect of international group." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

17 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 511 Furnishing of report in respect of international group

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document reproduces Clause 511 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version, setting out reporting obligations for constituent entities of international groups (country-by-country reporting style). It matters for multinational groups with Indian resident constituent entities - both taxpayers (resident constituent entities, parent entities, alternate reporting entities) and the tax administration. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 511 sits within miscellaneous provisions of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and proposes a standalone reporting obligation for "international groups". The clause creates duties to notify the prescribed income-tax authority and to furnish reports containing consolidated and constituent-level financial and operational information. Definitions and scope are provided within the clause itself. Any subordinate rules, forms, timelines and thresholds are to be set out "as prescribed" (delegated rule-making).

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 511 imposes three principal obligations:

  • Notification (sub-section (1)): Every constituent entity resident in India that is part of an international group whose parent is not resident in India must notify the prescribed income-tax authority in the prescribed form and manner by the prescribed date whether it is the alternate reporting entity and/or provide details of the parent or alternate reporting entity and their jurisdictions.
  • Reporting (sub-section (2)): Every parent entity or alternate reporting entity resident in India must, for each reporting accounting year, furnish a report to the prescribed income-tax authority within twelve months from the end of that reporting accounting year, in the prescribed form and manner.
  • Fallback reporting (sub-section (4)): Where an Indian resident constituent entity is not the parent/alternate reporting entity, it must furnish the report within a prescribed period if the parent is resident in a jurisdiction that (a) is not obligated to file such a report; (b) lacks an agreement with India for exchange of the report; or (c) has experienced a "systemic failure" and that failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Sub-sections (3) and (6) detail report content and exceptions; (7) grants the authority the power to issue notices and require supporting information; (8) provides a consolidated-revenue threshold exemption; and (9) permits application "as prescribed".

Interpretation

The text indicates a legislative intent to implement a country-by-country reporting regime targeted at large international groups with constituent entities resident in India. The use of express definitions (e.g., "consolidated financial statement", "parent entity", "constituent entity", "reporting accounting year") demonstrates an intent to align reporting obligations with financial reporting and with international standards for transfer pricing transparency. Several interpretive principles are signalled by the text: alignment with parent-jurisdiction financial periods, deference to prescribed forms and procedures, and reliance on intergovernmental agreements for automatic exchange.

Exceptions/Provisos

Key carve-outs and conditions:

  • Threshold exemption (sub-section (8)): The section will not apply if the total consolidated group revenue for the preceding accounting year does not exceed the prescribed amount - the specific monetary threshold is Not stated in the document.
  • Non-application where an alternate reporting entity files in its jurisdiction and certain conditions are met (sub-section (6)): Conditions include the foreign report being required by local law, presence of an exchange agreement between that country and India, absence of any systemic failure communicated by the Indian authority, written designation of the alternate reporting entity, and prior notification under sub-section (1). These are cumulative preconditions.
  • Fallback allocation where multiple Indian resident constituent entities exist (sub-section (5)): If more than one Indian constituent entity exists, any one designated entity may furnish the report provided the group has designated that entity and the information has been conveyed in writing to the prescribed authority.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A multinational group with a non-resident parent and one Indian subsidiary that is designated as the alternate reporting entity must notify the income-tax authority in India and, if resident as alternate reporting entity, file the report within 12 months of the reporting accounting year end. (All procedural details - forms/timelines - are Not stated in the document.)
  • Example 2: An Indian permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise that prepares separate financial statements as a PE falls within "constituent entity" and, if the foreign parent's jurisdiction neither files nor exchanges reports with India, that Indian PE may be required to furnish the report within the prescribed period. (Precise prescribed period is Not stated in the document.)

Interplay

The clause expressly contemplates interaction with:

  • Section 159(1) or (2) (via the definition of "agreement") - signalling reliance on specified intergovernmental agreements for exchange.
  • Section 173(c) (for the meaning of "permanent establishment").
  • Prescribed rules/guidelines/conditions that remain to be issued for form, manner, dates and thresholds. The document does not reproduce any subordinate rules or forms. Specific interactions with existing transfer-pricing or information-exchange regimes are Not stated in the document beyond the express reference to agreements for exchange.

Differences between the Document 1 "Section 511 of Income-tax Act, 2025" and Document 2 "Clause 511 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version"

  • Prescription wording: Document 1 repeatedly uses the phrase "as may be prescribed" (e.g., sub-sects (1), (2), (3), (9)), whereas Document 2 often uses the shorter "as prescribed".
    • Practical impact: negligible substantive difference in content; "as may be prescribed" can imply delegation to subordinate legislation, while "as prescribed" is more neutral - both indicate delegated rule-making. In practice, stakeholders should expect rules/guidelines to be issued regardless.
  • Minor phrasing differences: e.g., Document 1 in sub-section (4)(c) reads "where there has been a systemic failure of the country or territory and such failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority to such constituent entity" while Document 2 reads "where there has been a systemic failure and such failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority to such constituent entity."
    • Practical impact: none substantive; the enacted text in Document 1 clarifies that the systemic failure is of the foreign country/territory, but Document 2's meaning would be read the same way in context.
  • Overall: there are no material substantive differences in obligations, definitions, thresholds or exceptions between the two texts provided. The principal practical impact arises from the change in status from a Bill clause (Document 2) to an enacted statutory section (Document 1) and minor drafting refinements that preserve the same legal obligations and delegated-rulemaking expectation.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Indian resident constituent entities of international groups must track whether their group's parent is resident outside India, determine whether they are designated as alternate reporting entity, and ensure timely notification to the prescribed income-tax authority. Parent or alternate reporting entities resident in India must prepare and file the prescribed report within 12 months of the reporting accounting year end. Failure to notify or file may expose entities to compliance actions under the Act and to information requests under sub-section (7).
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The text requires aggregated country-level financial and operational metrics and constituent-level details; accordingly, entities will need robust consolidated financial statements, country allocation methodologies, documentation of designation as alternate reporting entity, and written communications to the Indian authority. The precise content and format are "as prescribed" and therefore entities must monitor subordinate instruments for technical compliance requirements (not specified in the Bill text).

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 511 establishes country-by-country style reporting obligations for international groups with Indian resident constituent entities.
  • There is a dual duty: initial notification by Indian resident constituent entities (where parent is non-resident) and annual reporting by Indian parent/alternate reporting entities within 12 months of reporting accounting year end.
  • Fallback reporting obligations apply to Indian resident constituent entities if the parent's jurisdiction does not file, does not exchange, or has a communicated systemic failure.
  • Exemptions hinge on a consolidated revenue threshold for the preceding year; the specific threshold is to be prescribed and is Not stated in the document.
  • The power to request supporting information and documents within defined timelines is provided to the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Many operational details (form, manner, prescribed dates, exact thresholds) are left to delegated rules; stakeholders must monitor rule-making for compliance specifics.

Full Text:

Section 511 Furnishing of report in respect of international group

Topics

Acts Income Tax