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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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