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 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