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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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