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 SCHEDULE I "CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA." 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

      SCHEDULE I CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is SCHEDULE I to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), setting out conditions u/s 9(12) for when activities of certain foreign investment funds and their fund managers will not constitute a "business connection" in India. It matters to non-resident funds, their managers, Indian investors, and tax authorities because satisfaction of these conditions removes a key nexus for Indian taxation. Who is affected: eligible investment funds established outside India, eligible fund managers, Indian resident investors and regulatory authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule I is framed "See section 9(12)" and supplies conditions under which certain activities shall not constitute a business connection in India. Scope: applies to eligible investment funds established/incorporated/registered outside India that collect funds from members for investment for their benefit and to eligible fund managers engaged in fund management activity on behalf of such funds. Definitions provided include associate, connected person (cross-referenced to section 184(5)), corpus, entity, and "specified regulations" (including SEBI Portfolio Managers Regulations, 1993 and SEBI Investment Advisers Regulations, 2013, or other notified SEBI regulations).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule specifies exhaustive conditions that an eligible investment fund must satisfy to attract non-application of business-connection rules u/s 9(12). Key textual ingredients: the fund must be non-resident; either resident of or established in a country/territory covered by agreements u/s 159(1) or (2) or notified; aggregate Indian resident participation (directly or indirectly) must not exceed 5% of corpus on 1 April and 1 October each tax year (with certain computation carve-outs); investor protection regulations must apply in the fund's jurisdiction; minimum 25 members who are not connected persons; individual member participation caps of 10%; top ten-members' aggregate participation <50%; single-entity concentration limit of 25%; prohibition on investing in associate entity; minimum monthly average corpus of INR 100 crore (with startup and wind-up exceptions); prohibition on carrying on or controlling business in India; fund must not be engaged in activities constituting business connection in India except those undertaken by the eligible fund manager; remuneration to eligible fund manager must be not less than an amount calculated in a prescribed manner. The Schedule also prescribes conditions for eligible fund managers (not an employee or connected person; registration under specified regulations; ordinary course of business; profit interest cap of 20% for manager and connected persons).

      Interpretation

      The text reflects a legislative intent to create a safe harbour for certain foreign investment funds and their managers so that merely soliciting Indian capital or performing limited fund-management services does not constitute a business connection in India, provided objective thresholds and structural safeguards are met. The Schedule uses enumerated quantitative ceilings (5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, INR 100 crore) and qualitative conditions (registration, independence, non-resident status) to distinguish passive/fiduciary investment vehicles from entities establishing a taxable presence. The requirement of registration under "specified regulations" signals reliance on securities regulator oversight as a substitute for domestic regulatory touchpoints.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Multiple carve-outs exist: (i) computation concession excluding certain managerial contributions up to INR 25 crore in the first three years from the 5% test; (ii) timing relief permitting four months after 1 April or 1 October to cure excess Indian participation; (iii) the corpus minimum not applying to funds wound up within the tax year and an 12-month grace period for newly established funds; (iv) paragraph (2) exempting paragraphs 1(e), (f), (g) (membership and concentration tests) for sovereign/state-backed funds and such others as notified by the Central Government; (v) in the Bill (Old Version) a power for the Central Government to by notification exempt any one or more conditions in sub-paragraph (1) (other than 1(c)) or (3) for IFSC-based eligible fund managers commencing operations on or before 31-03-2030.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident fund with 30 unconnected members, whose Indian-resident direct holdings are 4% of corpus on 1 April and 1 October, monthly average corpus INR 120 crore, with fund manager registered under SEBI PM Regulations (1993) and manager remunerated per prescribed method - the fund meets the Schedule's conditions and would not be a business connection in India (subject to other facts). (All facts consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: A fund where ten members together (with connected persons) hold 52% of corpus - this fails paragraph 1(g) and would not qualify for the safe harbour unless the fund falls within paragraph 2 or the Central Government notifies exemption. (Consistent with the text.)
      • Example 3: A newly established eligible fund whose monthly average corpus only reaches INR 90 crore within twelve months - the Schedule permits twelve months from the end of the month of establishment to meet the INR 100 crore corpus minimum; if not met after that window, the condition would not be satisfied. (Consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      The Schedule cross-references section 9(12) (to which it belongs), section 159(1) or (2) (agreements-likely double taxation or information exchange), section 184(5) (definition of connected person) and "specified regulations" (SEBI instruments). It contemplates implementation details to be prescribed and notifications by the Central Government for exceptions. The text also anticipates Board-prescribed guidelines for application. No further rules, circulars, or case law are mentioned in the document.

      Differences between the two versions and practical impact

      • Aggregation test - "directly or indirectly" removed: The Bill (Old Version) at paragraph 1(c) required that the aggregate participation or investment "directly or indirectly" by Indian residents does not exceed 5% of corpus; the Act version replaces this with "directly, by persons resident in India" (removing "indirectly").
        • Practical impact: the Act narrows the scope of Indian participation counted toward the 5% threshold by excluding indirect holdings (e.g., holdings through intermediate entities). This relaxes the restriction for some funds with indirect Indian exposures and reduces compliance complexity in tracing indirect interests, but may increase opportunities for circumvention unless other rules address substance.
      • Carve-out for notification modifying conditions (IFSC exception): The Bill (Old Version) at paragraph 1(6) allowed the Central Government to exempt any one or more conditions in sub-paragraph (1) (other than paragraph (1)(c)) or (3) for eligible funds with an IFSC-based fund manager commencing operations by 31-03-2030. The Act version removes the specific exclusion of paragraph (1)(c) and instead permits notification to specify that any one or more of the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) or (3) may not apply or may apply with modifications when the fund manager is located in an IFSC and has commenced operations on or before 31-03-2030.
        • Practical impact: the Act broadens executive flexibility to relax or modify paragraph (1)(c) (the 5% Indian participation test) as well as other conditions for IFSC-located managers, potentially making IFSCs more attractive and enabling policy tailoring to attract fund managers.
      • Specified regulations reference updated: The Bill (Old Version) defined "specified regulations" to include the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 1993; the Act version updates this reference to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 2020.
        • Practical impact: brings the schedule into alignment with the contemporary regulatory regime governing portfolio managers; ensures terminology and cross-references align with current SEBI instruments.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Funds must monitor and document member composition, direct and indirect participation percentages (Bill requires counting indirect holdings), concentration limits, corpus averages, and arm's-length remuneration calculations for fund managers. Non-compliance with any enumerated condition risks losing the safe harbour and exposure to Indian taxation as a business connection. The Bill heightens compliance burden by requiring indirect participation tracking for the 5% test.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule mandates annual statement filing within 90 days of tax year end in prescribed form and furnishing other relevant documents; funds should maintain contemporaneous records demonstrating member identities, connected-person linkages (per section 184(5)), calculations of corpus and averages, investment allocations (entity-wise), and remuneration computation to substantiate compliance. (All procedural specifics beyond the 90-day statement timing are Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule provides an enumerated safe harbour from being a business connection in India for non-resident investment funds and their managers subject to multiple quantitative and qualitative conditions.
      • The Bill (Old Version) requires that the 5% participation cap account for direct and indirect Indian holdings, increasing compliance complexity for funds with layered ownership.
      • Membership, concentration and single-entity investment ceilings aim to ensure widespread investor base and diversification; sovereign/state funds are exempt from these membership tests.
      • Eligible fund managers must be independent, registered under specified regulations, act in ordinary course of business and have capped profit entitlements (20%).
      • Funds must file prescribed statements within 90 days of the tax year-end; further procedural details are to be prescribed or notified.
      • Several material procedural details and effective date are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE I CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES NOT TO CONSTITUTE BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax