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
╳
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...
    Case LawsGST
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Case LawsGST
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Case LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    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
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    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
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    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
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    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
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    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
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    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
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    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
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    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
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    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
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    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
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    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
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding 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
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    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
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    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
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    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
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    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
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    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
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    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
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    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
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
    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

      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 ➔