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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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