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 VIII "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      SCHEDULE VIII - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      SCHEDULE VIII (Bill, Old Version) lists categories of income that are excluded from the total income of political parties and electoral trusts for income-tax computation. It matters to registered political parties and electoral trusts, and to donors and tax authorities concerned with compliance and reporting. The document does not state an effective date. Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: "See section 12" (SCHEDULE VIII). The Schedule sets out a Table with three columns: (B) Income not to be included in total income, (C) Eligible persons, and (D) Conditions. The Schedule covers two entries: (1) certain incomes (house property, other sources, capital gains, and voluntary contributions) for political parties registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and (2) voluntary contributions for electoral trusts. The Schedule contains a Note defining "electoral bond" by reference to the Explanation to section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Schedule provides enumerated conditions attached to each exclusion. No other definitions or extended explanations are provided. Not stated in the document: legislative intent beyond the text; effective date; interaction with other income-tax provisions beyond the internal cross-references provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule exempts specified categories of income from inclusion in total income for eligible political parties and electoral trusts. For political parties (registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951), the exempt incomes include: income chargeable under "Income from house property," "Income from other sources," "Capital gains," and "any income by way of voluntary contributions received from any person." For electoral trusts, the exempt income is "any voluntary contributions received."

      Coverage is limited to "eligible person" as defined in column C of the Table; eligibility for a political party is tied to registration under the cited section; for an electoral trust, the table simply identifies "An electoral trust." The Note supplies a cross-statutory definition relevant to electoral bonds.

      Interpretation

      The Schedule conditions the exemption on compliance requirements contained in column D. The text indicates a legislative intent to condition tax benefits on maintenance of records, audit, restricted modes of receipt for small donations, reporting obligations under the Representation of the People Act, and, for electoral trusts, distribution and regulatory compliance. The use of cross-references to specific sections of the Representation of the People Act suggests a statutory integration of electoral reporting and income-tax treatment. The Schedule uses prescriptive compliance criteria rather than blanket immunity, signalling a policy to incentivise transparency and traceability of political funding.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause (d) caps small-donation anonymity: "no donation exceeding Rs. 2,000 is received ... otherwise than by an account payee cheque ... or through electoral bond." Thus donations <= Rs. 2,000 may be received in other modes; donations > Rs. 2,000 must be through specified financial instruments. Clause (b) requires a record of voluntary contributions other than electoral bonds in excess of Rs. 20,000, including the name and address of the contributor. For electoral trusts, clause (a) mandates distribution of 95% of aggregate donations in the tax year (plus any earlier surplus) to political parties during that tax year. Clause (b) requires that the electoral trust function according to Central Government rules.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered political party receives Rs. 50,000 as a voluntary contribution by cheque and has maintained books, audited accounts, kept contributor records where required, submitted the report u/s 29C(3), and filed the tax return as required. The contribution would be excluded from total income under the Schedule subject to compliance. (Derived from clauses (a)-(f).)
      • Example 2: An electoral trust receives Rs. 1 crore in donations in the tax year and distributes Rs. 95 lakh to registered political parties during that year and functions per Central Government rules. The Rs. 1 crore of voluntary contributions is not included in total income under the Schedule, assuming compliance. (Derived from electoral trust clauses.)
      • Example 3: A political party receives a cash donation of Rs. 5,000 in hand (i.e., not by cheque or electronic mode). Under clause (d) such a receipt would contravene the prohibition (since exceeding Rs. 2,000 received otherwise than by specified modes), potentially jeopardising the exemption for that donation or the party's entitlement under the Schedule. (Derived from clause (d).)

      Interplay

      The Schedule cross-references provisions of the Representation of the People Act (section 29(a); section 29C(3)) and the Reserve Bank of India Act (Explanation to sub-section (3) of section 31). It also requires compliance with section 263(1)(a)(iii) for return furnishing. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited in the Bill text beyond the general reference that electoral trusts must function as per Central Government rules. The Schedule thus relies on external statutory and regulatory instruments for definitional and compliance content. Specific interaction details (e.g., precedence where Schedule conditions conflict with other tax provisions) are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      • Reference to Representation of the People Act-Section numbering: The Bill (Old Version) refers to a political party "registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," whereas the Act text (Income-tax Act, 2025) refers to a political party "registered u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951."
        • Practical impact: The Act version corrects or alters the cross-reference. If the Bill reference (29(a)) was erroneous, the Act version aligns the income-exemption to the correct statutory registration provision, avoiding uncertainty about eligible entities. This is a drafting/clarificatory change; no substantive shift to eligibility is apparent from the texts themselves.
      • Prescription language regarding electronic mode: The Bill uses the phrase "as prescribed" in clause (d) (Bill: "as prescribed"), while the Act uses "as may be prescribed" (Act: "as may be prescribed").
        • Practical impact: Minimal substantive difference; "as may be prescribed" is the more conventional enabling language for delegated legislation, clarifying that the electronic modes will be specified by rule-making authority. It likely strengthens the permissive legislative footing for future rules.
      • Return filing cross-references and due dates: The Bill requires the political party to furnish a return "as per the provisions of section 263(1)(a)(iii) on or before the due date under that section." The Act requires furnishing "as per the provisions of section 263(1)(a)(iii) and 263(2) on or before the due date referred to in section 263(1)(c)."
        • Practical impact: The Act adds an additional cross-reference to section 263(2) and specifies the due date provision more precisely (263(1)(c)). This tightens the statutory compliance framework by pointing to an additional subsection and a precise due-date clause, potentially expanding or clarifying filing obligations and consequences for non-compliance.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Political parties must maintain books of account and documentary records sufficient for an Assessing Officer to determine income; failure may lead to denial of exemption. Specific risks include non-receipt through prescribed modes for donations over Rs. 2,000, failure to record contributor details for contributions over Rs. 20,000 (other than electoral bonds), and failure to secure an audit. Electoral trusts must ensure timely distribution of 95% of receipts to preserve tax treatment; failure to distribute may endanger exemption. These obligations create audit and reporting exposure for both entities.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule explicitly requires maintenance of books and records, contributor name and address for relevant donations, and audit reports. Entities should retain bank evidence for account payee cheques/ drafts/electronic transfers and maintain documentation of electoral bond receipts. The Schedule itself prescribes these documentary requirements; procedural detail (forms, formats, retention period) is Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule grants targeted income exclusions for registered political parties and electoral trusts, conditioned on specified transparency and procedural requirements.
      • Eligibility for exemption for political parties is tied to registration under a specified provision of the Representation of the People Act; accuracy of cross-references is material to eligibility determinations.
      • Donations above Rs. 2,000 must be received by specified financial instruments; donations above Rs. 20,000 (except electoral bonds) require recording of donor identity and address.
      • Electoral trusts must distribute 95% of receipts in the tax year to preserve the exclusion; they must also function under Central Government rules.
      • Audit of accounts and filing of returns (cross-referenced tax provisions) are preconditions for enjoying the benefits; failure to comply can jeopardise tax exemptions.
      • The Schedule relies on cross-statutory definitions (RBI Act) and electoral reporting (RPA provisions); operational detail is delegated to rules and external provisions.
      • Where the Bill's text is silent (effective date; specific procedural formats; penalties for non-compliance within the Schedule), the document states "Not stated in the document."

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE VIII - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax