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 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

Acts Income Tax