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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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 XIV "INSURANCE BUSINESS" 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-XIV INSURANCE BUSINESS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document-set compares SCHEDULE XIV - "INSURANCE BUSINESS" - as appearing in the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). It governs computation of taxable profits for life and other insurance businesses and applies to insurers and non-resident insurers operating through branches in India. Effective dates or decision dates: Not stated in the documents.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule XIV is attached to the Income-tax Act (See section 55). It sets special computation rules for profits and gains of insurance businesses. Scope: the Schedule divides into A (Life insurance business), B (Other insurance business), and C (Other provisions). The text includes references to actuarial valuations made under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), and to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (4 of 1999), and the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) for references to LIC. Definitions provided: "investments" and "life insurance business" (as defined in section 2(11) of the Insurance Act, 1938). The documents supply other operative phrases used throughout the Schedule. No further definitions or explanatory notes are provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage and primary rules:

      • Paragraph A(1): If a person is engaged in life insurance business during the tax year, that business's profits and gains shall be computed separately from any other business.
      • Paragraph A(2): Profits and gains from life insurance are the annual average of the surplus disclosed by the actuarial valuation under the Insurance Act, 1938 for the last inter-valuation period ending before the commencement of the tax year, adjusted to exclude any surplus or deficit from earlier inter-valuation periods. Any expenditure inadmissible u/s 34 for other businesses shall be added to such profits and gains.
      • Paragraph A(3): Where assessment is based on an annual average of surplus disclosed by a valuation for an inter-valuation period exceeding twelve months, computing income-tax for the year: (a) credit shall not be given as per specified cross-reference (see Differences section) for income-tax paid in the preceding tax year; and (b) credit shall be given for the annual average of income-tax paid by deduction at source from interest on securities or otherwise during such period.
      • Paragraph B(1): For insurance business other than life insurance, profits and gains shall be the "profit before tax and appropriations" as disclosed in the profit and loss account prepared under the Insurance Act, 1938 or IRDA Act or regulations, subject to specified add-backs and allowances: (a) add back inadmissible expenditures/allowances (including provisions for tax, dividend, reserve, or any other provision as may be prescribed) inadmissible u/ss 28 to 54; (b) add/deduct gains or losses on realisation of investments if not already in P&L; (c) add back provisions for diminution in investment value debited to P&L; (d) allow as deduction amounts carried to a reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed.
      • Paragraph B(2): Amounts added under B(1)(a) that are payable u/s 37 shall be allowed as a deduction in the year actually paid.
      • Paragraph C(5): For non-residents operating insurance via branches in India and in absence of reliable (or "more reliable") data, profits may be deemed as the proportion of global income corresponding to the proportion of premium income from India to total premium income. Paragraph C(5)(2) clarifies computation of global income for life insurance business of a non-resident be computed as per this Act for life insurance carried on in India.
      • Paragraph C(6): Interpretation clause: (a) "investments" include securities, stocks and shares; (b) "life insurance business" means that term as in section 2(11) of the Insurance Act, 1938. Additionally, references to the Insurance Act, 1938 regarding LIC shall be treated as references to that Act or section 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.

      Interpretation

      The Schedule mandates that life insurance profits be computed on an actuarial-surplus-average basis rather than purely on accounting profit, showing legislative intent to align income-tax computation for life insurers with actuarial valuation cycles. For non-life insurers the tax base is tied to the profit before tax and appropriations per statutory financial statements with enumerated tax adjustments. The text manifests an intent to use sector-specific statutory accounts and actuarial valuations as primary inputs. No further legislative history or intent statements are included.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions explicitly provided in the Schedule:

      • For life insurers, where inter-valuation period exceeds twelve months, treatment of tax credits is specially governed (see paragraph A(3)); the prior-year credit is excluded as per cross-reference and averaging of TDS credits is allowed.
      • For non-life insurers, certain amounts carried to reserve for unexpired risks are specifically allowed as deductions "as may be prescribed".
      • Amounts added back under paragraph B(1)(a) but payable u/s 37 are allowed when actually paid (timing proviso).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A life insurer with actuarial valuations covering an inter-valuation period of 18 months would compute the taxable life-insurance surplus as the annual average of the surplus from the last inter-valuation period, excluding earlier inter-period surplus/deficits; while computing tax the section A(3) rules on credit for prior-year tax and TDS averaging apply. (Illustration consistent with text; specific numbers Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A non-life insurer's P&L shows a provision for diminution in value of investments debited to P&L; per paragraph B(1)(c) that provision is to be added back in computing taxable profits. (Specific monetary impact Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The Schedule expressly requires reliance on accounts/statements prepared under the Insurance Act, 1938, IRDA Act, 1999, and regulations thereunder; it also cross-refers to sections 28-54, 34, 37 and a section-numbered provision referenced in paragraph A(3). It anticipates delegated prescription ("as may be prescribed") for certain reserves and provisions. No specific notifications, rules or circulars are cited in the text.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Section reference in paragraph 3(a): Document 1 refers to "section 390" for non-provision of credit for income-tax paid in the preceding tax year; Document 2 refers to "section 386".
        • Practical impact: The operative legal cross-reference differs. If section numbers differ materially in the Act, this changes which statutory mechanism governs denial of credit for prior-year tax when an inter-valuation period exceeds twelve months. The document texts do not state the content of either section, so the practical effect depends on the actual content of section 386 versus section 390 in the enacted statute. Not stated in the document: which section actually provides the intended rule.
      • Phraseology in paragraph 4(a): Document 1 adds the introductory qualification "subject to the other provision of this rule," before listing items to be added back, whereas Document 2 omits that introductory phrase.
        • Practical impact: The added qualification in Document 1 signals that the add-back in clause (a) may be limited by other provisions within the same rule (i.e., Schedule paragraph 4). That can narrow or contextualise the sweep of add-backs; Document 2's broader wording may be read as more absolute. The documents do not identify which "other provision" is intended to limit clause (a). Not stated in the document: the specific provisions that would limit clause (a).
      • Wording relating to availability of data for non-resident allocation (paragraph 5(1)): Document 1 uses the phrase "in the absence of more reliable data," while Document 2 uses "in the absence of reliable data."
        • Practical impact: Document Rs. 1's "more reliable" suggests a comparative standard (i.e., more reliable than other available measures), potentially allowing alternative bases where comparatively superior data exists; Document 2's "reliable" suggests a threshold standard (i.e., no reliable data at all). The documents do not supply examples or tests of reliability.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation differences: Examples include Document 1's clause 2 heading omitting the preposition "from" ("profits and gains life insurance business")-likely a typographical lapse-while Document 2 reads "profits and gains from life insurance business." Clause 6(1)(a) uses "include" (Doc 1) vs "includes" (Doc 2).
        • Practical impact: These are drafting-level variations unlikely to change substantive effect, though typographical or grammatical lapses can create interpretive questions in close cases. The documents do not indicate any intention to change meaning arising from punctuation or typography.
      • References to prescription/allowances wording: Both documents use "as may be prescribed" in various places; Document 1 sometimes inserts additional qualifiers such as "subject to the other provision of this rule."
        • Practical impact: Document 1's additional qualifiers may imply slightly greater internal limitation and reliance on delegated legislation. The documents do not provide the delegated rules/regulations.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Life insurers must ensure actuarial valuations and the method of annual averaging comply strictly with the Schedule's requirements; misapplication of inter-valuation adjustments or incorrect treatment of inadmissible expenditures may expose taxpayers to reassessment. For non-life insurers, careful reconciliation between statutory P&L items and tax adjustments (add-backs for inadmissible items, treatment of realisation gains/losses and diminution provisions) is required. The precise cross-reference in paragraph A(3) determines availability of prior-year tax credits; divergence across drafts creates a legal uncertainty until the correct statutory numbering is clarified.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Retain actuarial valuation reports, inter-valuation period calculations, detailed working of annual average surplus, documentary evidence for provisions and realisation gains/losses, and records of tax paid by deduction at source during inter-valuation periods. For non-resident branches, maintain premium income segmentation (India v. total) and any alternative "more reliable" data used to allocate global profits.

      Key Takeaways

      • Life insurance taxable profit is calculated as the annual average of actuarial surplus for the last inter-valuation period, with prescribed adjustments and separate computation from other businesses.
      • Non-life insurers use profit before tax and appropriations per statutory accounts, with specified add-backs and a permitted deduction for reserves for unexpired risks as prescribed.
      • Special treatment applies when inter-valuation periods exceed twelve months regarding tax credit availability and averaging of TDS payments; the statutory cross-reference differs between drafts.
      • Terminology differences between the Bill and the Act text (e.g., "reliable" vs "more reliable") may affect the standard for allocating global income of non-residents.
      • Several provisions rely on "as may be prescribed" or cross-references to other sections and statutes, so final operational clarity depends on enacted section numbering and delegated rules not included in the documents.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE XIV - INSURANCE BUSINESS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax