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
    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 ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    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
    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...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    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:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of SCHEDULE III "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS" 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 III INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This SCHEDULE III (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) lists categories of income that are excluded from the total income of specified eligible persons (see "See section 11"). It matters because it delineates targeted tax exclusions that affect individuals, associations, funds, public bodies and specific sectors (tea, rubber, khadi, securitisation, investor protection funds, strategic petroleum reserves etc.). The Schedule operates by reference to conditions and statutory notes; the effective date or enactment date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: The Schedule is linked by reference to section 11 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It purports to operate in computing "total income of a tax year" and excludes certain incomes "subject to the conditions mentioned" in column D. Coverage includes personal allowances and pensions, agricultural land compulsory acquisition gains, subsidies for specified commodities, incomes of research associations, professional associations, khadi/village industries institutions, securitisation trusts, various investor protection funds, Core Settlement Guarantee Fund, local authorities, provident funds, international sporting events, bodies established under treaties, and strategic petroleum replenishment arrangements.

      Definitions and explanations are provided in the Notes appended to the Table, for selected expressions such as "disaster", "family", "Sikkimese", "concerned Board", "local authority", "Khadi and Village Industries Commission", "securitisation", "commodity exchange", "depository", and "recognised clearing corporation".

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule operates as a table with three columns: (B) income not to be included, (C) eligible persons, and (D) conditions. Key entries include:

      • Exclusion of sums received by HUF members (Sl. No.1), subject to non-overlap with section 99(3) & (4) and payment from family income or estate of family.
      • Partners' share of firm income where the firm is separately assessed (Sl. No.2), provided share is as per profit-sharing ratio in partnership deed.
      • Compensation on account of disaster from governments/local authorities to individuals or heirs, provided no earlier deduction for loss/damage was claimed (Sl. No.3).
      • Partial withdrawals from National Pension System Trust (Sl. No.4), with limits capped at 25% of contributions and subject to PFRDA Act terms.
      • Exemptions for various parliamentary/legislative allowances, travel concessions for leave/retirement, certain perquisites where employer pays tax, rent allowances for residence, and allowances incurred in performance of duties (Sl. Nos.5-13).
      • Exclusions for pensions and family pensions in respect of gallantry awardees and armed forces deaths in operational duties (Sl. Nos.14-16).
      • Exclusion of limited incomes included u/s 99(1)(d) up to Rs.1,500 per minor child (Sl. No.17).
      • Capital gains from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land under specified conditions (Sl. No.18).
      • State/area-based exclusions for Scheduled Tribe members or Sikkimese on incomes from particular areas and for dividends/interest (Sl. Nos.19-20).
      • Sectoral subsidies (tea, rubber, coffee, cardamom etc.) where certified by concerned Boards (Sl. No.21).
      • Exclusion for local authorities' incomes from house property, capital gains, other sources, or business where services/commodities are supplied within jurisdiction (Sl. No.22).
      • Research associations and professional associations/institutions, subject to application of income to objects, specified investments, approvals and withdrawal procedures (Sl. Nos.23-24).
      • Exemptions for institutions supporting khadi/village industries, securitisation trusts, investor protection funds, Core Settlement Guarantee Fund, trade unions, provident funds, international sporting event incomes, treaty bodies, reverse mortgage loan proceeds (Sl. Nos.25-37).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent, as deducible from the text, is to continue targeted tax exemptions that promote public policy objectives: support to veterans and gallantry awardees, incentivising specific agricultural/plantation sectors, facilitating market infrastructure (investor protection funds, clearing funds), encouraging khadi/village industries and research/professional bodies, and ensuring certain social and administrative reliefs (disaster compensation, pensions). The Schedule delegates details to "prescribed" rules and notifications in multiple places, indicating legislative reliance on subordinate legislation for operational specifics.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Many entries include provisos limiting the scope: caps (e.g., 25% on NPS withdrawal exclusion), territorial/temporal tests (agricultural land used for two years, compensation received on or after 1-4-2004), conditions of approval (research/professional/khadi institutions), notification requirements (Central Government), certificate filing (subsidy under concerned Board), and investment modes for funds (section 350 referenced). Several provisions explicitly state "Nil" or omit further conditions.

      Illustrations

      • Employee A receives partial NPS withdrawal of Rs.100,000 after satisfying PFRDA conditions. Exclusion is limited to Rs.25,000 (25% of contributions), subject to PFRDA terms.
      • Firm profits distributed to Partner P as per partnership deed; the partner's share received in his hands is excluded from his total income provided the distribution follows the deed ratio (Sl. No.2).
      • Research Association R, approved u/s 45(3)(a), applies income wholly to its object and invests only in modes specified in section 350; its income is excluded subject to prescribed conditions.

      Interplay

      The Schedule cross-references multiple statutory instruments and other provisions: Disaster Management Act, PFRDA Act, Companies Act, Securities and Exchange Board rules, Depositories Act, Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, Provident Funds Act, Securitisation Act, and various regulations. The Schedule repeatedly conditions exclusions on prior approval, notification, prescribed modes of investment, prescribed procedural matters and certificates to be filed with Assessing Officer. These interactions create dependency on subordinate rules and other statutes for full operability.

      Differences between SCHEDULE III - Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and SCHEDULE III - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2) and Practical Impact

      • Reference to National Pension System payment: Document 1 (Act) cites section 124; Document 2 (Bill) cites section 121.

        Practical impact: Potential change in statutory hook for the exemption; taxpayers and administrators must map which provision (section 121 or 124) governs NPS partial withdrawals. If the Bill text (section 121) was renumbered in the enacted Act (section 124), there is a drafting/renumbering discrepancy; this affects locating the governing scheme provision and assessing eligibility.

      • Perquisite/tax-payment clause (Sl. No. 10): Document 2 (Bill) contains an additional clause (c): "such perquisite is paid irrespective of section 200 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." Document 1 (Act) omits this clause.

        Practical impact: The Bill's additional clause expressly addresses company withholding provisions (s. 200, Companies Act, 1956) suggesting an intention to clarify that employer payment of tax on perquisite is effective even where Companies Act withholding rules might otherwise apply. Its omission in the Act could create uncertainty about interaction with company law withholding obligations and whether employer tax-payment satisfies all compliance facets.

      • Cross-references to section 99 sub-subparagraphs (Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 17): Document 1 references section 99(3) and (4) / section 99(1)(c); Document 2 references section 99(3) and (4) / section 99(1)(d) respectively.

        Practical impact: Difference in sub-clause numbering changes the subset of incomes being excluded; this affects which minor-child income or specific inclusions are covered. Practitioners must check the correct numbering in the rest of the statute to determine which incomes are intended to be carved out.

      • Language and formulation differences in multiple clauses (Sl. Nos. 2, 4, 8, 11-13, 18, 21, 23-26, 30, 36, 38, etc.). Examples include "is as per the profit-sharing ratio provided" (Act) vs "The sum received is as per the profit-sharing ratio provided" (Bill) and "as may be prescribed" vs "as prescribed".

        Practical impact: Mostly stylistic; some differences (use of "may be prescribed" versus "prescribed") can carry interpretive weight: "may be prescribed" signals enabling power; "prescribed" can indicate that rules are already framed or that compliance depends on existing prescriptions. If substantive, such wording alters delegation of rulemaking and potential timing of conditions becoming operational.

      • References to subsidiary legislation/regulation dates and instrument identifiers in notes: notable differences include

        • Recognised clearing corporation definitions: Document 1 cites regulations of 2018; Document 2 cites regulations of 2012 (Note 11(a)(i) and (b)(i)).
        • Regulatory cross-references for securitisation and clearing (various notes) differ in punctuation and clause references.
        • Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act citation: Document 1 note shows "61 of 1956" while Document 2 shows "91 of 1956".

        Practical impact: Incorrect or inconsistent cross-references and dates can cause confusion when applying definitions or locating the correct regulatory instrument. A wrong Act number for the Khadi Act or an incorrect year for regulations can lead to mis-identification of the applicable normative instrument, potentially delaying compliance or misapplying exemption conditions until clarified by official corrigenda.

      • Nil / blank condition fields: In a few Sl. Nos., Document 1 expressly records "Nil" under Conditions whereas Document 2 leaves spaces or uses non-breaking spaces ( ).

        Practical impact: Likely no substantive change; formatting differences can, however, create ambiguity in machine-read processing or automated compliance systems until reconciled.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure strict adherence to conditions (certificates, notifications, territorial and temporal tests) to claim exclusions; failure to furnish certificates or satisfy approval/notification conditions risks denial. Where the Schedule delegates to "prescribed" rules, taxpayers and practitioners must monitor subordinate legislation for operative criteria.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule implicitly requires documentary proof - certificates from concerned Boards (Sl. No.21), evidence of domicile/registration (Sikkimese, Scheduled Tribe residence), proof of replenishment for petroleum arrangements, partnership deeds, approval orders for associations, and proof of payment of rent and expenses for allowances. Maintaining contemporaneous records, approval letters and notifications will be crucial.

      Key Takeaways

      • Schedule III enumerates targeted exclusions from "total income" tied to discrete policy objectives and beneficiary classes.
      • Most exclusions are conditional and require compliance with prescribed procedures, certificates, approvals or notifications; subordinate legislation plays a central role.
      • Sectoral exclusions (tea, rubber, coffee, khadi, investor protection funds, securitisation trusts) continue to be recognised but hinge on certification/notification.
      • Personal reliefs (NPS partial withdrawal, travel concessions, rent allowances, pensions to gallantry awardees) are retained but subject to quantifiable limits and conditions.
      • Cross-references to other statutes and regulations are numerous; accurate application requires concurrent review of those instruments.
      • Drafting and reference inconsistencies (e.g., section and regulation numbers) in the Bill text require attention to avoid misapplication; practitioners should verify authoritative enacted text and any corrigenda.
      • Documentation and approval evidence will be central to successfully claiming exclusions and to withstand assessment scrutiny.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE III INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF ELIGIBLE PERSONS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax