Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. 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 ...
    Case LawsGST
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Case LawsGST
    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
    Case LawsGST
    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...
    Case LawsGST
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Case LawsGST
    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:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    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
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    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
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    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
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    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
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    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
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    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
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    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
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    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
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    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
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    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
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    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
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    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
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    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
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    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
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    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
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    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
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    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
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    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
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
    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

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Comparison of SCHEDULE XVI "PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS" 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

      Print Options

      SCHEDULE XVI - PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The provided documents are two versions of SCHEDULE-XVI (Permitted Modes of Investment or Deposits) related to section 350 of the Income-tax legislation as presented in (a) "SCHEDULE-XVI of Income-tax Act, 2025" (Document 1) and (b) "SCHEDULE-XVI of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version" (Document 2). Both list permissible investment/deposit modes for registered non-profit / charitable or religious trusts or institutions. The differences between the two texts are principally editorial and ordering/wording differences and a few numbering/clauses variations; they do not indicate new substantive modes in the Old Version beyond those in the Act version provided. Affected parties: charitable/religious trusts, registered non-profit organisations, tax administrators and financial intermediaries. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: See section 350 (referenced) and the schedule title SCHEDULE XVI. The schedule specifies the "modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in section 350" and therefore regulates the forms in which corpus or funds of charitable/religious trusts and institutions (or registered non-profit organisations) may be maintained to retain tax benefits or compliance with section 350. The schedule enumerates specific permitted instruments, investments, deposits and certain transitional and historical exceptions. Definitions are provided within the schedule (see paragraph providing definitions such as "long-term finance", "public company", "urban infrastructure", "Immovable property", "incubatee", "incubator").

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The schedule enumerates discrete permitted modes of investment/deposit for monies u/s 350. Coverage: central government small savings instruments (savings certificates, small savings schemes), Post Office Savings Bank, scheduled banks and cooperative banks, Unit Trust of India units, securities issued by Central/State Governments, government-guaranteed debentures, investments/deposits with public sector companies (with transitional deeming rules if company ceases to be a public sector company), bonds issued by specified financial corporations or public companies engaged in long-term housing/urban infrastructure finance, immovable property, IDBI deposits, units of specified mutual funds (Schedule VII entries), transfers to Public Account of India, deposits with housing/urban development authorities, equity shares of depositories, specified investments by recognised stock exchanges, investments by payment system entities in specified companies, incubator/incubatee investments, shares of National Skill Development Corporation, debt instruments of RBI-registered infrastructure finance companies, Sovereign Gold Bonds ("Stock Certificate" definition reference), units of Powergrid Infrastructure Investment Trust, shares in a public sector company, historical corpus exceptions (assets forming corpus as at specified historical dates), accretions by bonus shares, debentures acquired before specified historical dates, voluntary contributions maintained as specified tangible assets, short-term holding exception for non-specified assets, and funds representing business profits under specified conditions.

      Interpretation

      The schedule is primarily a closed list of permissible forms; interpretive principle implied: only these listed forms (and those falling within the enumerated transitional/historical carve-outs) qualify as compliant with section 350 requirements. The definitions provided constrain certain terms (for example, "long-term finance" defined by a five-year minimum repayment term, "Immovable property" excluding most machinery/plant). Legislative intent as indicated by the text: to allow a mix of conservative, government-backed, regulated financial instruments and specified sectoral investments while controlling diversion into unregulated assets; to preserve historical corpus exceptions; and to permit certain strategic sectoral investments (e.g., incubators, digital payments infrastructure, infrastructure finance).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The schedule includes multiple temporal and condition-based exceptions: (a) investments in public sector company shares remain covered for three years after the company ceases to be a public sector company; (b) other deposit/investment in such company remains covered until repayable; (c) assets not specified in clauses (1)-(30) are permitted only if not held beyond one year from the end of the tax year in which acquired (Document 1 wording differs slightly-see differences table); (d) corpus preservation exceptions for assets held on 1 June 1973 and 1 June 1998; (e) certain assets acquired before 1 March 1983; (f) business profits may be retained only if separate books are maintained where other income exists.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit purchases Central Government savings certificates and deposits surplus funds in a scheduled bank: these are permitted under clauses (1) and (3).
      • Example 2: A trust acquires equity shares of a public sector company that later becomes disinvested and ceases to qualify as a public sector company; the trust's shareholding is deemed to remain a permitted investment for three years from the date of change (clause (7)(a)).
      • Example 3: A charitable institution receives a painting as a voluntary contribution and maintains it as part of corpus pending a Board notification: clause (30)/(32) allows voluntary contributions maintained in forms such as furniture or jewellery if specified by Board notification. (Note: reliance on Board notification is required.)

      Interplay

      The schedule cross-references: Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959; Depositories Act, 1996; Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007; Companies Act, 2013; Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964; Schedule VII (mutual fund schemes); Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme notification G.S.R. 827(E) dated 30 October 2015; and section 32(e) (as corrected). Interaction with these statutes and notifications determines eligibility/qualification of instruments and entities named. Specific practical interpretive issues: Not stated in the document (e.g., guidance on valuation, treatment of hybrid instruments, or applicable timelines for Board notifications).

      Differences between Document 1 (Schedule-XVI of Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Schedule-XVI of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version)

      FeatureDocument 1 (Act)Document 2 (Bill - Old)Practical Impact
      Title/Scope descriptionReads "FORMS OR MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS BY A REGISTERED NON PROFIT ORGANISATION".Reads "FORMS OR MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS BY A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST OR INSTITUTION".Potential drafting consistency/coverage difference: Act version uses broader term "registered non profit organisation" while Bill refers to "charitable or religious trust or institution". Practical effect depends on statutory definition of "registered non profit organisation" vs. "charitable or religious trust or institution" elsewhere - Not stated in the document.
      Numbering and orderingLists items (1)-(32) with definitions at paragraph 2 (a)-(f).Lists items (1)-(32) then includes clause (33) as the definitions block; textual wording slightly varies (e.g., references to "herein referred to" vs "hereafter referred to").Primarily editorial; no substantive change to listed permissible modes is apparent. Practical impact: negligible on permitted modes; clarity/interpretation possibly affected by drafting differences but core content substantially same.
      Specific clause differences (examples)Includes item (30) "voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture or any other article as the Board may, by notification specify" as clause (30) and item (31) concerning assets not in clauses (1)-(30) held up to one year from end of tax year.Order differs: item (32) in Document 2 is the "voluntary contributions..." clause and item (30) in Document 2 refers to assets not being investments held after expiry of one year from end of tax year. Also Document 2 contains minor textual corrections (notes indicating correction of "section 32 (1)(e)" to "section 32 (e)").These are drafting/numbering and editorial corrections. Practical impact: none substantive, but numbering differences require caution when citing specific sub-paragraph numbers; reference to section 32(e) correction clarifies intended cross-reference.
      Definitions block placement and labellingDefinitions under "2. Interpretation" enumerated (a)-(f).Definitions included at the end as "(33) In this schedule,- (a) ... (f) ..." with slightly different heading style.No substantive difference in definitions themselves. Practical impact limited to citation conventions within drafting-users must ensure referencing correct clause numbering for each version.
      Minor wording variantsUses phrasing such as "herein referred to as investor" and "herein referred to as investee".Uses "hereafter referred to as investor" and "hereafter referred to as investee"; contains textual spacing and punctuation variations and an explicit errata note about corrections.Editorial only. Practical impact: none on legal substance, but the errata notes in Document 2 improve textual accuracy.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Trustees and non-profit administrators must ensure corpus monies are invested only in the enumerated modes or within the short-term holding exception; reliance on non-specified investments beyond the one-year grace risks non-compliance with section 350 conditions. Not stated in the document: procedural sanctions or consequences for non-compliance.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies need for records evidencing nature of instruments (e.g., government certificates, bank deposits, share certificates, notifications of permitted Board-specified tangible assets), dates of acquisition to apply short-term holding rule and historical corpus cut-off dates, and documentation of separate books of accounts where business profits and other income co-exist.

      Key Takeaways

      • SCHEDULE-XVI provides a closed/enumerated list of permitted investment/deposit modes for monies u/s 350, privileging government-backed and regulated instruments and certain sectoral investments.
      • Both documents substantially list the same modes; differences are largely editorial, numbering and minor wording variations, and a title wording variance (registered non-profit organisation vs. charitable or religious trust/institution).
      • Transitional exceptions (public sector company treatment, historical corpus dates, pre-1983 debentures) preserve earlier holdings and prevent retrospective disallowance of legacy corpus assets.
      • Short-term holding exception permits non-specified assets to be held only up to one year from the end of the tax year in which acquired (wording differs slightly between versions; practitioners should confirm the authoritative version before citation).
      • Definitions such as "long-term finance" (five-year minimum) and "Immovable property" (excluding most machinery/plant) narrow the scope of qualifying instruments.
      • Practical compliance requires careful record-keeping, attention to cross-references (e.g., section 32(e), statutory definitions), and monitoring of statutory/Board notifications referenced for certain asset categories.
      • Errata in the Bill (corrections from "section 32(1)(e)" to "section 32(e)") and minor drafting differences mean practitioners should use the enacted/official Gazette text for authoritative citation.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE XVI - PERMITTED MODES OF INVESTMENT OR DEPOSITS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔