Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. 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 ...
    Case LawsGST
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Case LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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...
    Case LawsGST
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Case LawsGST
    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:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    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
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    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
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    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
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    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
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    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
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    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
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    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
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    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
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    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
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    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
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    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
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    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
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    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
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    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
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    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
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    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
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    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
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
    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

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Comparison of SCHEDULE II "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME" 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

      Print Options

      SCHEDULE II INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      SCHEDULE II sets out classes of income that are excluded from "total income" for income-tax purposes. The Bill (Old Version) and the enacted Act differ in several material respects affecting life-insurance exclusions, pension/NPS entries, references to International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) entities, and the inclusion of equalisation-levy income. Affected parties include policyholders, insurers, employers, employees, pension subscribers, IFSC entities and tax authorities. Effective dates are stated within specific entries (for example, policy issue periods and 1 April 2002/2023) where provided; no single overarching commencement date for the Schedule is stated in the Bill text.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: SCHEDULE II (See section 11) - "Income not to be included in total income." The Schedule lists categories of exempt income (column B) subject to conditions (column C). Definitions and notes at the end assign meanings to terms used in the table. The Bill (Old Version) is the source document for this commentary. Any differences vis-`a-vis the enacted Act are identified only insofar as both texts were provided; where a detail is absent in the Bill text, the phrase "Not stated in the document." has been used.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule enumerates 16 heads of income excluded from total income, including: agricultural income; sums under life-insurance policies (with sub-conditions tied to period of issue, premium-to-sum-assured ratios and aggregate premium ceilings); provident fund and recognised provident fund payments (with carve-outs for interest on large contributions on/after 1 April 2021); payments under Sukanya Samriddhi, National Pension System (NPS) Trust, Agniveer Corpus Fund, approved superannuation funds; scholarships; awards/rewards instituted or approved by government; interest or other receipts on specified government securities and deposits; interest on gold bonds/certificates; interest on bonds issued by local authorities or State Pooled Finance Entities; income on transfer of certain UTI units; income chargeable to equalisation levy (new insertion); and specific categories u/s 10(15) and related provisions of the 1961 Act as applicable.

      Interpretation

      The text frames exclusions as conditional: each head is subject to prescribed conditions and definitions in accompanying notes. Legislative intent, as discernible from the Bill text, is to preserve traditional exemptions (agriculture, certain pensions, scholarships, specified government securities) while tightening or clarifying tax-exempt treatment for life-insurance receipts and retirement/savings vehicles by reference to issue dates, premium ratios, aggregate premium ceilings and contribution thresholds. The insertion of equalisation-levy related exclusion (Sl. No. 15) signals explicit recognition of overlap between equalisation-levy chargeability and income-tax neutrality for certain cross-border digital services.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions provided in the Bill include:

      • Life-insurance sums excluded only if policies meet period-specific premium-to-sum-assured ratios and, for certain periods, aggregate premium ceilings (Rs. 2,50,000 or Rs. 5,00,000) - and certain sums (section 127 receipts; Keyman policies) are expressly ineligible.
      • Portions of interest on provident fund/recognised provident fund balances attributable to contributions on/after 1 April 2021 are not eligible for exclusion where contributions exceed specified thresholds (Rs.5,00,000 / Rs.2,50,000) and the amount not excluded is to be computed as prescribed.
      • NPS payments excluded only to the extent they do not exceed 60% of the total amount payable on closure/opt-out.
      • Approved superannuation fund payments are exempt only in specified circumstances (death, commutation at retirement/age, refund in limited cases, transfer to specified pension schemes).
      • Equalisation-levy related incomes are excluded only where not chargeable as royalty/FTS in India under agreements notified u/s 159 (explicit exception in Sl. No. 15).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A unit-linked life policy issued on 1 Oct 2023 with annual premium such that premium-to-sum-assured ratio is 12% and aggregate premium per tax year is Rs.2,00,000 - the Bill permits exclusion if it meets the Item 2 conditions (unit-linked post-1-April-2023: ratio <=15% for special, <=10% for others; aggregate <=Rs.2,50,000 for ULIP). Whether treated as "special policy" depends on disability/disease status u/rs - Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An employee receives accumulated recognised provident fund balance including interest attributable to contributions of Rs.6,00,000 made on/after 1 April 2021 in a year when no employer contribution was made - interest attributable to that contribution is not eligible for exclusion (threshold exceeded Rs.5,00,000); the portion not excluded to be computed as prescribed (procedure Not stated in the document).

      Interplay

      The Bill references other statutory instruments and provisions: Section 11 (hook), Section 127 (for life-insurance ineligibility), Schedule XI para 8, Schedule XV (definition of "actual capital sum assured"), Insurance Regulatory regulations, the Provident Funds Act, Government Savings Promotion Act (Sukanya Samriddhi), Dept. notifications regarding NPS (notifications not reproduced in the Bill text), Finance Act, 2016 (equalisation levy Chapter VIII) and section 159 agreements. The Bill contemplates Board guidelines for removal of difficulties. Where computation methods are required ("as prescribed"), the Bill defers to rules/regulations; these procedural details are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Bill (Old Version) and the Enacted Act - Practical Impact

      TopicBill (Old Version)Act (2025) - Differences & Practical Impact
      Reference to IFSC in life-insurance entryExclusion clause expressly excludes policies issued by "International Financial Services Centre insurance intermediary office" from the general test; IFSC office language appears within clause (a).

      The Act broadens IFSC coverage differently (references to "International Financial Services Centre Insurance Office") and later adds a special carve-out that aggregate premium conditions do not apply to policies issued on or after 1 April 2025 by the IFSC Insurance Office.

      Practical impact: IFSC-issued policies post-1-Apr-2025 enjoy relaxed aggregate-premium limits under the Act versus the Bill - this benefits IFSC policyholders and insurers.

      Section reference for ineligible insurance sumsIneligibility lists section 127 (no subsection reference) and Keyman policies.

      The Act specifies "section 127(4)" as ineligible; this narrows or clarifies which portion of section 127 is meant.

      Practical impact: narrower/clearer exclusion scope for section 127 receipts, reducing interpretive ambiguity.

      Aggregate premium thresholds for policies issued on/after 1-Apr-2023ULIPs: aggregate <=Rs.2,50,000; other policies: aggregate <=Rs.5,00,000.

      The Act restates these ceilings but then adds the IFSC carve-out for policies issued on/after 1-Apr-2025.

      Practical impact: domestic policyholders unchanged, IFSC policyholders gain advantage.

      NPS-related entries (Sl. Nos. 15 & 16)The Bill lacks specific entries for "lump sum amount" defined by a particular notification and for Unified Pension Scheme subscriber-specific references.

      The Act adds two discrete entries (Sl. Nos. 15 and 16) dealing with NPS payments to Unified Pension Scheme subscribers and "lump sum amount" per a departmental notification dated 24 Jan 2025.

      Practical impact: greater specificity and targeted exemption for Unified Pension Scheme subscribers under NPS, linking to a concrete notification (FX-1/3/2024-PR). This reduces uncertainty for affected NPS subscribers.

      Equalisation levy incomeBill includes Sl. No. 15 addressing income chargeable to equalisation levy.

      The Act omits the Bill's Sl. No. 15 equalisation-levy entry or shifts numbering; comparison shows the Act instead includes other NPS-related items.

      Practical impact: the treatment of equalisation-levy incomes requires reconciliation between Act text and prior Bill; taxpayers relying on the Bill's exclusion must verify the final Act wording (Not stated in the document).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Life-insurance exclusions carry detailed temporal and quantitative conditions (period of issue, premium-to-sum-assured ratio, aggregate premium ceilings). Insurers and policyholders must verify issue date classifications and compute premium ratios and aggregate premiums across the policy term. The explicit ineligibility for keyman policies and section 127 receipts increases scrutiny over policy ownership and assignment.
      • NPS and provident fund entries impose record-keeping obligations: authorities and subscribers must track contributions made on or after 1 April 2021 separately, and identify portions of interest attributable to contributions exceeding thresholds. The method of computing the amount not excluded is left to prescribed rules - until rules are notified, potential uncertainty persists.
      • Equalisation-levy clause (Sl. No. 15): taxpayers and digital service providers should reconcile equalisation-levy exposure and Income-tax chargeability; the clause excludes income chargeable to equalisation levy except where the income is otherwise taxable in India as royalty/FTS under notified agreements (thus creating an interplay with tax treaty determinations and notifications u/s 159).
      • IFSC references: the Bill treats certain IFSC insurance intermediary office receipts differently in the life-insurance entry (exclusion/inclusion language differs versus the Act). Parties operating within IFSCs should note the special treatment and any administrative guidance forthcoming.
      • Procedural uncertainty: multiple entries defer to "as prescribed" computations and to notifications by the Central Government; until those are issued, taxpayers face interpretation and compliance risk. The Board's power to issue binding guidelines (with Central Government approval) is preserved, indicating administrative rule-making will shape practical application.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill retains traditional exemptions (agriculture, scholarships, certain pension/retirement receipts) while imposing quantified tests on insurance exclusions (period-specific ratios and aggregate premium ceilings).
      • Interest on provident fund balances attributable to large post-1-April-2021 contributions is explicitly excluded from exemption, with thresholds (Rs.5,00,000 / Rs.2,50,000) and prescribed computation methods.
      • Equalisation-levy related income is newly addressed - excluded except where taxable in India as royalty/FTS under notified agreements.
      • Certain specific sums are expressly excluded from insurance exemption (section 127 receipts; Keyman insurance), tightening the prior broader language.
      • Several entries defer key operational questions to rules/notifications; substantial administrative guidance is required to operationalise the Schedule.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE II INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔