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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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-XV "DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC." 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-XV DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The Bill text reproduces Schedule XV (see section 123) providing a catalogue of payments and contributions that qualify for deductions for purposes of section 123 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version). It matters to individual taxpayers, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), employees, employers, mutual funds, public companies and specified financing institutions. Document does not state an effective date beyond its placement in the Bill.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule XV (see section 123) to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version. The Schedule enumerates categories of payments which "qualify as deduction" for purposes of section 123 of the Bill. It covers life insurance premia, deferred annuity payments, contributions to provident, pension and superannuation funds, specified government-notified schemes, long-term deposits, certain subscriptions to equity/debentures and mutual fund units, tuition fees for two children, and payments for purchase/construction of residential house property (subject to paragraph 3). The Schedule contains rules limiting deduction for insurance premia (paragraph 2), defines the scope of amounts for house purchase/construction (paragraph 3), sets conditions under which previously allowed deductions are withdrawn and treated as income (paragraphs 4-5), and provides interpretative definitions (paragraph 6).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule identifies specific categories of payments/deposits made in the tax year that qualify as deductions for section 123. Key categories include:

      • Life insurance premium on life of the individual, spouse and any child; HUF coverage for members (clause 1(a)).
      • Payments under deferred annuity contracts (subject to conditions) (clause 1(b)).
      • Salary deductions by or on behalf of the Government for securing deferred annuity (20% of salary) (clause 1(c)).
      • Contributions to provident funds (including those under Provident Funds Act, 1925, and Central Government notified provident funds) (clauses 1(d)-(f)).
      • Contributions to recognised superannuation funds (clause 1(g)).
      • Subscriptions to notified securities/deposit schemes and to savings certificates (clause 1(h)-(i)).
      • Contributions/participation in specified unit-linked insurance plans and mutual fund/pension fund schemes (clauses 1(j)-(n), (m)).
      • Specified term deposits with banks and post offices, Senior Citizen Savings Scheme deposits, NABARD bonds, and long-term housing finance schemes (clauses 1(s)-(v)).
      • Tuition fees for full-time education of any two children (clause 1(q)).
      • Expenditure for purchase or construction of a residential house property chargeable to tax under "Income from house property" (clause 1(r)), subject to paragraph 3 restrictions.
      • Subscription to equity shares/debentures forming part of eligible capital issues approved by the Board and units of specified mutual funds (clause 1(z)).

      Interpretation

      Paragraph 2 prescribes quantitative ceilings on insurance premia deductible: (a) up to 20% of actual capital sum assured for policies issued on or before 31-03-2012; (b) up to 10% for policies issued on or after 01-04-2012; and (c) up to 15% where policy issued on/after 01-04-2013 covering a person with disability or certain specified diseases. "Actual capital sum assured" is defined narrowly to exclude return of premiums and bonuses (paragraph 2(2)). Paragraph 6 provides definitions (e.g., "Administrator," "contribution," "insurance," "Life Insurance Corporation," "public company," "security," "specified company," "transfer," "eligible issue of capital," "public financial institution") and cross-references to other statutes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Paragraph 3 delimits eligible payments for house purchase/construction; it expressly includes instalments, repayments of specified borrowings, and transfer costs, and expressly excludes admission fees, cost of shares, initial deposits for membership, post-completion alterations/repairs, and expenditures deductible u/s 22. Paragraphs 4 and 5 establish events that cause withdrawal of earlier deductions (e.g., surrender/termination, premature transfer, sale of subscribed shares within specified holding periods) and set out the tax treatment (deeming adjustments to income) when disallowance conditions are met.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual pays premium for a life policy issued in 2014 on his own life; deductible premium is limited to 10% of the actual capital sum assured unless the policy covers a person with disability (in which case 15% limit may apply). (This follows paragraph 2.)
      • Example 2: An assessee subscribes to an eligible issue of capital approved by the Board under clause (z). If the assessee sells the shares within three years of acquisition, the deduction will be withdrawn and the aggregate of deductions allowed earlier will be deemed income in the year of sale (paragraphs 4 and table item 4).
      • Example 3: An assessee withdraws a Senior Citizen Savings Scheme deposit before five years; the withdrawn amount (excluding previously taxed interest and certain amounts received on death) is deemed income in the year of withdrawal (paragraph 5, table item 1).

      Interplay

      The Schedule explicitly cross-references multiple statutes and contingent notifications by the Central Government. It depends on notifications for bringing particular schemes/funds/instruments within its scope and interacts with other income-tax provisions by specifying which items are excluded (e.g., section 22 deductions) and by using cross-references (e.g., definition of "transfer" includes transactions referred to in section 269UA(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). The document does not state rules or notifications that give further detail; such delegated instruments will determine operational scope.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      Comparison basis: SCHEDULE-XV as reproduced from the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) versus SCHEDULE-XV as reproduced from the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). The Bill text (Document 2) is the primary source for the detailed commentary below; differences noted here are limited to those apparent in the two texts provided.

      • Cross-references for "security": Document 1 defines "security" by reference to section 2(f) of the Government Securities Act, 2006. Document 2 defines "security" by reference to section 2(2) of the Public Debt Act, 1944.
        • Practical impact: The two statutes have different scopes and drafting histories. A shift in cross-reference can alter which instruments qualify as "security" for the Schedule. Tax practitioners and taxpayers must check the precise statutory definitions in the referenced Acts to determine whether particular government or public debt instruments qualify for deduction-linked provisions; this may change the set of eligible instruments.
      • "Eligible issue of capital" cross-reference: Document 1 ties the term to section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Document 2 ties the term to section 135(9) (numeration as in the Bill text).
        • Practical impact:Different sectional references may point to materially different criteria for what constitutes an eligible issue (for example, the type of business or use of proceeds). Unless the two cross-references are substantively identical (which cannot be assumed), taxpayers subscribing to equity/debenture issues will need to verify which business activities qualify under the Bill's reference. This affects eligibility for the deduction under clause (z).
      • Wording and sequencing differences in some clauses: Several clauses (for example clauses (i), (l), (m), (n)) show minor drafting variations - differences such as "as may be notified by the Central Government" versus "as notified by the Central Government," or rearrangement of sub-clauses listing Administrator/specified company.
        • Practical impact: Most such changes are stylistic and unlikely to change substantive outcomes. However, subtle differences in qualification language (e.g., "as may be notified" v. "as notified") could affect delegated power interpretations if tested. Practitioners should note exact drafting when advising on whether a scheme has been validly brought within the Schedule by notification.
      • Headings and minor editorial changes: The heading for paragraph 4 differs slightly: Document 1-"Disallowance of and taxation of deduction already allowed" versus Document 2-"Withdrawal of deduction and taxation of deduction already allowed" (or "Withdrawal of deduction and taxation..." depending on placement).
        • Practical impact: Primarily editorial. The substance of paragraph 4 (conditions for denial/reversal and taxation on fulfilment of specified conditions) appears consistent across both texts provided.
      • Interpretation clause cross-references: Document 1 references the Government Securities Act, 2006 and section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act; Document 2 references the Public Debt Act, 1944 and section 135(9). Document 2 also cites "section 2(2) of the Public Debt Act, 1944" specifically for "security."
        • Practical impact:As above, these cross-reference changes can affect the scope of defined terms and therefore the reach of deductions. They may create compliance uncertainty until clarified by legislative history, explanatory memorandum, rules or notifications.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance: Taxpayers must track holding periods and conditions set out in paragraph 4 to avoid clawback of deductions (e.g., insurance surrender, early sale of eligible shares, premature withdrawal of term deposits).
      • Documentation: Record of policy issue date, capital sum assured, disability certification (where higher threshold applies), loan/repayment documentation for housing finance, notifications referenced in Schedule, and Board approvals for eligible capital issues will be necessary to substantiate deductions.
      • Interpretive uncertainty: Several entries depend on delegated notifications and cross-statutory definitions (e.g., "security," "eligible issue of capital"). Until clarifying notifications or rules are issued, taxpayers and advisers will need to consult the referenced Acts and any Ministry/Board notifications.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule lists specific categories of payments that qualify for deduction u/s 123, with detailed ceilings for insurance premia and conditions for housing payments.
      • Withdrawal/recapture rules are explicit: termination, surrender, sale within specified periods or premature withdrawal may convert previously allowed deductions into taxable income.
      • Definitions and cross-references (notably "security" and "eligible issue of capital") are determinative of scope and may materially affect eligibility; the Bill cites particular external Acts.
      • Many categories rely on Central Government notifications or Board approvals; practical application requires monitoring of such instruments.
      • Taxpayers should maintain contemporaneous evidence: policy documents, notification texts, loan/repayment records, purchase/transfer documents, and proof of holding periods.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE-XV DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIA, CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND, SUBSCRIPTION TO CERTAIN EQUITY SHARES, ETC.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax