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
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of SCHEDULE IX "DEDUCTION FOR TEA DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT, COFFEE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT AND RUBBER DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD "PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION"." 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 IX - DEDUCTION FOR TEA DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT, COFFEE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT AND RUBBER DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD "PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION".

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document is SCHEDULE IX (Schedule-IX) to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), prescribing deductions for deposits into Tea Development Account, Coffee Development Account and Rubber Development Account when computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." It matters to taxpayers engaged in growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber, and to tax administrators overseeing allowable deductions and audit/compliance. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Schedule IX proceeds "See section 48" (as annotated in the text). The Schedule governs quantum of deduction for amounts deposited into specified development accounts (special account or deposit account) and the conditions, withdrawal consequences, treatment on sale/transfer of assets acquired through such amounts, and interpretative definitions. Definitions provided in paragraph 6 explain terms such as Coffee Board, deposit account, deposit scheme, National Bank, Rubber Board, Special account, specified account and Tea Board. The Schedule applies to assessee carrying on the business of growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber in India during the tax year.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The Schedule establishes a specific deduction regime for growers/manufacturers of tea, coffee and rubber. Key elements: (1) Quantum of deduction (paragraph 1); (2) conditions for claiming the deduction (paragraph 2); (3) restrictions on withdrawal from specified accounts and consequent taxability (paragraph 3); (4) non-allowance of deduction for expenditure met from account withdrawals (paragraph 4); (5) treatment on sale/transfer of assets acquired under the schemes (paragraph 5); and (6) definitions (paragraph 6).

Interpretation

Legislative intent reflected in the text: incentivise deposits into development accounts for the specific agricultural/plantation sectors while denying double tax benefits and ensuring deposits are used for sectoral purposes. The text prescribes the deduction to be the lesser of actual deposits or 40% of profits (para 1(1)(a)/(b)), and prioritises granting the deduction before set off of brought-forward losses (para 1(2) referencing section 110). The Schedule contains deeming provisions to pull back amounts into taxable income when withdrawn other than for specified purposes, when utilised for specified articles or when not utilised after release (para 3). It also contains anti-abuse rules on sale/transfer of assets within eight years (para 5).

Exceptions/Provisos

Carve-outs and conditions in the Schedule include:

  • Deduction limited to 40% of business profits computed under the head before making the deduction (para 1(1)).
  • Deduction allowed only if the assessee is carrying on the specified business in India and deposits funds in the specified account (para 2(1)(a)-(b)).
  • Audited accounts and furnishing of an audit report are required before the specified date referred to in section 63 (para 2(1)(c)).
  • Withdrawals are generally prohibited except in enumerated events (closure, death, partition of HUF, dissolution of firm, liquidation of company) (para 3(1)).
  • Withdrawals in certain circumstances or utilisation for specified articles are deemed taxable immediately (para 3(2)-(4)).
  • When assets acquired under the scheme are sold or transferred within eight years, the portion of cost relatable to the earlier deduction is taxed as business income (para 5(1)). Exemptions apply on sale to specified persons or on succession to a company, subject to conditions (para 5(2)).
  • Deductions claimed in one tax year cannot be claimed in any other tax year for the same amount (para 2(3)).

Illustrations

  • Example 1: An assessee operating a tea plantation deposits INR X into a special account during the tax year. If 40% of the assessed profits before deduction equals INR Y and X <= Y, the allowable deduction equals X; if X > Y, allowable deduction is limited to Y (para 1(1)).
  • Example 2: If the assessee withdraws the entire balance on closure of business, the amount withdrawn is deemed to be the profits and gains of business of that tax year and taxed accordingly (para 3(1), (2)).
  • Example 3: Asset A acquired using account funds is sold five years after acquisition; the part of asset cost attributable to earlier deduction is deemed income in the year of sale (para 5(1)).

Interplay

The Schedule refers to other statutory provisions: section 48 (heading reference), section 63 (specified date for furnishing audit report), and section 110 (set off of loss carried forward). It also invokes external statutory entities and enactments in definitions (Coffee Act, 1942; National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981; Rubber Act, 1947; Tea Act, 1953; Companies Act, 2013 s.2(45)). Interaction with rules, notifications or circulars beyond those citations: Not stated in the document.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Claimants must ensure strict compliance with deposit requirements and audit filings (para 2(1)(b), 2(1)(c)). Failure to comply or unauthorised withdrawals will trigger immediate taxability under para 3. Use of withdrawn funds to purchase "specified article or thing" also triggers income inclusion (para 3(3)).
  • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers need contemporaneous evidence of deposits into specified accounts, authorisation under the special/deposit scheme, audit reports filed by the date in section 63, vouchers/invoices showing utilisation for permitted purposes, and asset acquisition and disposal records to demonstrate eight-year holding or qualifying exceptions on succession/sale to specified persons (paras 2-5). The Schedule requires the report "in such form and manner as prescribed" (para 2(1)(c)), implying retention of the prescribed form and accountant verification for audit trails.

Key Takeaways

  • The deduction equals the lesser of actual deposits into specified accounts or 40% of business profits (para 1(1)).
  • Deduction must be supported by deposits into a special account (National Bank) or deposit account under board schemes and by an audited report furnished by the specified date (para 2).
  • Withdrawals are tightly restricted; unauthorised withdrawals or release and non-utilisation/ utilisation for specified articles cause immediate taxation (para 3).
  • Assets acquired using such funds attract claw-back on sale/transfer within eight years, unless transfer is to specified persons or in permitted succession to a company meeting conditions (para 5).
  • Deductions once allowed in a tax year cannot be re-claimed in other years; partnerships or AOPs cannot pass the deduction to partners/members individually (para 2(3)-(4)).
  • The Schedule cross-references other statutory sections and statutory bodies; specific procedural form/manner is left to prescription (section 63 timing; "as prescribed") (paras 1(2), 2(1)(c)).
  • Definitions in para 6 are sector-specific and determine the scope of eligible schemes/accounts and institutional actors.

Differences from the Parallel Version and Practical Impact

Comparative differences between this Schedule (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and the other text presented (Schedule-IX of Income-tax Act, 2025) include the following principal divergences and their practical consequences:

  • Reference for set off of loss: This Bill version references section 110 for carry-forward loss set-off (para 1(2)); the Act version references section 112.
    • Practical impact: Potential change in cross-reference may affect interpretation or alignment with other loss-carry provisions; the text here does not explain the substantive difference between s.110 and s.112. Users must check which section governs loss carry-forward in the operative Act. The document does not state transitional treatment. (Document cross-reference difference noted.)
  • Timing of deposit for claiming deduction: The Bill version simply requires that the assessee "has deposited any amount in the specified account" (para 2(1)(b)). The Act version adds an express timing condition: deposit before the expiry of six months from the end of the tax year or before the due date of furnishing the return of income, whichever earlier.
    • Practical impact: The Bill version is less explicit on timing, which could lead to interpretive uncertainty about when deposits must be made to qualify. The Act version's explicit timing imposes a clear deadline beneficial for administration and certainty for taxpayers. The Bill text leaves the timing requirement ambiguous: Not stated in the document as to whether later enactments amend timing.
  • Form and manner language for audit report: The Bill text states the audit report to be "in such form and manner as prescribed and verified by such accountant," whereas the Act text says "in such form and manner as may be prescribed."
    • Practical impact: Both contemplate prescription; the Bill's explicit "verified by such accountant" emphasises accountant verification. Operationally this is minor but could affect the nature of the certification required; the Bill version appears to require both statutory audit and a separate accountant's verification form when accounts are audited under another law (para 2(2)).
  • Variation in wording for compliance where audit required under other law: The Bill version requires furnishing "the report of such audit along with report by an accountant," whereas the Act version requires furnishing "the report of such audit and a report by an accountant."
    • Practical impact: Substantively similar; drafting differences likely immaterial.
  • Definitional and textual discrepancies: The Bill version's definition of the Rubber Act citation is "Rubber Act, 1947 (34 of 1947)" (para 6(e)), while the Act text cites "24 of 1947." Also, the Bill version lacks an explicit definition of "special scheme" (it defines "deposit scheme" and "Special account" but not "special scheme"), whereas the Act version includes "special scheme means the scheme approved in this behalf by the Tea Board or the Coffee Board or the Rubber Board."
    • Practical impact: Citation errors and missing definitional text could create confusion about the statutory provenance and the precise institutional approval process for schemes; lack of a definition for "special scheme" in the Bill text may leave uncertainty about the approval or scope of such schemes until clarified by rules or later amendments.
  • Minor drafting variations in successor-company condition language: The Bill version speaks of transfer "in view of succession of business" and refers to "specified scheme or deposit scheme is applicable" (para 5(2)(b)), while the Act uses "in connection with succession" and the "provisions of special scheme or deposit scheme is applicable."
    • Practical impact: Subtle drafting differences-functionally similar but may require interpretive attention in succession cases (firms->companies) to establish continuity of scheme applicability and composition of shareholders/partners.

Action Points

  • Taxpayers in tea/coffee/rubber businesses should ensure deposits are made into the prescribed accounts and maintain complete audit records and prescribed audit reports by the date in section 63 (para 2).
  • Carefully review the operative Act for exact cross-references (sections 110/112) and the final wording of definitions such as "special scheme" and correct statutory citations before relying on the Bill wording for compliance planning (paras 1(2), 6).
  • Maintain documentation substantiating permitted utilisation of released funds, invoices for "specified articles or thing," and holding periods for assets acquired under the scheme to avoid claw-back (paras 3-5).

Full Text:

SCHEDULE IX - DEDUCTION FOR TEA DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT, COFFEE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT AND RUBBER DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD "PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION".

Topics

Acts Income Tax