Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax