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 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