&w=3840&q=100)
New Tax Bill may allow late ITR refunds, protect NGO income from heavy tax
Relief for Religious-cum-Charitable Trusts
One of the most significant recommendations is to retain the existing tax exemption on anonymous donations made to religious-cum-charitable trusts. Clause 337 of the new Bill had proposed a flat 30% tax on all anonymous donations, except for those made to purely religious trusts. This marked a sharp departure from current law, under which religious and charitable trusts receive broader exemptions unless the donations are specifically earmarked for hospitals or educational institutions they run.
The Committee flagged this as a "critical omission" and urged the reintroduction of a provision similar to Section 115BBC of the current Act to prevent adverse consequences for religious-charitable trusts. 'The proposed clause could significantly disrupt the NPO ecosystem,' the report warned.
Tax Only 'Income', Not 'Receipts'
Another major concern addressed is the proposed shift from taxing 'income' to 'receipts' of NPOs. The Committee strongly opposed this move, arguing it goes against the principle of real income taxation. Taxing gross receipts would unfairly include capital recoveries and inflows that do not represent actual earnings, it said.
Instead, the Committee recommended a return to net income-based taxation, urging a rewrite of Clause 335 to ensure only surplus income is taxed, not donations or reimbursements.
TDS Refunds Without ITR Filing
In a taxpayer-friendly move, the Committee also proposed allowing TDS refunds without mandatory ITR filing. The current draft Bill requires individuals to file a return within the due date to claim a TDS refund — even if their total income is below the taxable limit.'This may inadvertently criminalise small taxpayers who are otherwise non-filers,' the report cautioned. The Committee has therefore suggested removal of Sub-clause (1)(ix) from Clause 263, which mandates return filing for refund claims.
Shift to 'Tax Year' Welcomed
The Committee has also welcomed the government's decision to replace the concepts of 'previous year' and 'assessment year' with a unified 'tax year'. This move is expected to streamline tax references, reduce confusion, and improve accessibility of the law to non-specialists.
Additional Recommendations
According to experts, the Committee has made over 566 suggestions aimed at refining the draft Bill. These include:
Modernising definitions such as "capital asset" and "infrastructure capital company"
Clarifying property-related deductions
Re-emphasising the "actual payment" rule for claiming business expense deductions
Making penalties for non-maintenance of books discretionary
Creating procedural safeguards to prevent excessive penalisation of honest taxpayers
Nangia Andersen LLP, M&A Tax Partner, Sandeep Jhunjhunwala said the Committee has suggested modernising definitions such as "capital asset" and "infrastructure capital company", clarifying property-related deductions, and reinforcing the "actual payment" rule for business expenses. It has also recommended procedural safeguards such as making penalties for non-maintenance of books discretionary and permitting refund claims even where returns are not filed on time.
According to Amit Baid, Head of tax at BTG Advaya:
1) Reintroducing Nil withholding certificates helps prevent refund backlogs for genuine zero-tax cases — including non-residents entitled to treaty relief on cross-border transactions.
(2) Disallowing all deductions just because a return was late would have punished lakhs of genuine taxpayers. The Committee's fix restores sanity by limiting this to only certain income-linked deductions.
(3) Without the phrase 'in the circumstances of the case', GAAR could have become a tax sledgehammer - treating even bona fide restructurings as abuse. The Committee's intervention restores balance and guards against overreach on honest transactions.
(4) Many legacy trusts were staring at disqualification under vague definitions. By recommending clarity on 'wholly for charitable or religious purpose', the Committee saves hundreds of older institutions from legal limbo.
Chance missed
The Committee missed the chance to resolve the double taxation risk in holding company structures. Denying inter-corporate dividend deduction under the 22% concessional regime not only breaks with past policy logic, but could make this regime unattractive for investment vehicles and cross-border structures.
Tax-neutral treatment for fast-track demergers could be challenging. By not addressing this, the Committee has left a key gap that may discourage intra-group restructurings."
As the Monsoon Session of Parliament begins on July 21, the debate on the Committee's recommendations will shape the final contours of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, before it replaces one of India's longest-standing laws.
"The report provides clause by clause evaluation of the Bill with total 566 observations / recommendations for change. This is a mammoth task performed in a record time with precise and relevant recommendations. Now the Lok Sabha has to debate the recommendations and identify the changes that are required in the current Bill to make it futuristic and relevant for common tax-payers. It is highly desirable to defunct the old law and bring a new law which is transparent, easy to comprehend, in line with current business requirements and help to reduce tax disputes," said Preeti Sharma, Partner, Tax and Regulatory Services, BDO India.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Letters to The Editor — July 25, 2025
UK-India FTA It has been an exceptionally expedition and it has turned out to be fruitful. This new development heralds a new era of innovation, exploration, and opportunities for both nations which have had a complex history. Balagopal Gopinath, Keerikkad, Alappuzha, Kerala Maharashtra Bill I write this letter as the Deputy Director (News), Directorate General Of Information and Public Relation, Government of Maharashtra. The Editorial ('Danger of thought', July 24) is a gross misrepresentation of a necessary and carefully considered legislative measure. The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill is aimed at providing the legal framework for handling unlawful activities of unlawful organisations that are a part of the united front of banned CPI(Maoist) and other left-wing extremist organisations. The Government of Maharashtra is steadfast in its commitment to upholding both the security of its citizens and the democratic freedom enshrined in the Constitution. The MSPS Bill does not exhibit police thought. The legislation targets organisations whose actions, whether through the written or spoken word, signs, or other activities, 'constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity'. This is a critical distinction. The Bill is not aimed at commentators, critics, or political opponents engaging in legitimate dissent. It is designed to tackle the insidious, overground network of Maoist front organisations that engage in the recruitment, fundraising, and radicalisation of youth and professionals, thereby fuelling violence and threatening to undermine the constitutional order. Varsha Andhale, Mumbai


The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Exposing children early to concept of disability is the way to go
In a significant move toward inclusive education, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), in partnership with the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), recently signed a landmark tripartite memorandum of understanding (MoU). The goal: to reform school curricula so that children — able-bodied or otherwise — are exposed early to the concept of disability, and gain a foundational understanding of the rights enshrined in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. This move sends a clear and urgent message: if we want inclusion in our buildings, streets, workplaces, and public spaces, we must first build it into our textbooks. It's a long-overdue recognition that inclusion is not a regulatory requirement to be complied with; it's a cultural norm that must be taught, modelled, and absorbed. And nowhere is this shift more urgently needed than in the fields of architecture, engineering, and urban development — professions that literally shape the world around us. What this project to reform school-level education acknowledges, the built environment sector in India still fails to grasp: inclusion is not a checkbox; it cannot be coerced; it has to be inculcated. Take the example of Delhi, it continues to be a city where persons with disabilities are systematically excluded by design. According to a 2016 access audit conducted under the Union government's Accessible India Campaign, nearly 30% of government buildings in the capital lacked ramps, 82% of public toilets were inaccessible, and 94% of healthcare facilities were not designed with people with disabilities in mind. These figures are not just numbers — they represent an everyday denial of rights. Despite growing awareness, the fundamental issues of coordination, enforcement, and mandatory design education remain unresolved — leaving Delhi's built environment far from inclusive. An afterthought The root of the problem is that the people designing and constructing these buildings — engineers, architects, developers — often have little to no training in disability inclusion. Stakeholders implementing the Unified Building Bylaws (UBBL), a comprehensive set of regulations and guidelines for the construction, alteration, and maintenance of buildings within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, frequently point to a significant knowledge gap. Unlike fire safety, which enjoys a secure place in engineering and architectural curricula and is baked into compliance processes, accessibility is treated as an afterthought — if it appears at all. Two of India's most competitive and prestigious programmes illustrate this gap with uncomfortable clarity. The in computer science and engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, despite its centrality to digital product and systems design, includes no foundational training in accessible technology or inclusive design. The program at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, one of the country's top institutions for urban design, often treats accessibility as an elective or a niche specialisation, not as a non-negotiable design principle. These courses represent the aspirational apex of technical education in India. If the engineers and architects coming out of these programmes are not trained in disability inclusion, what can one hope for broader systemic change? Most crucially, it's not that India lacks a legal framework for accessibility. Quite the opposite. The RPwD Act, 2016 — specifically Sections 40 and 44 lay out clear obligations for accessible infrastructure. The Harmonised Guidelines, 2021, provide detailed technical standards. Delhi's UBBL, in chapter 11, lays down clear accessibility requirements for public-use buildings — sloped ramps, tactile flooring, accessible toilets, appropriate signage, and more. These essentially accessibility mandates are echoed in varying details in the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards (2021) and the National Building Code, respectively. Delhi's Master Plan, 2041 even commits to building inclusive recreational spaces and public infrastructure. And yet, even after the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Rajive Raturi vs Union of India (2024), which ruled that accessibility standards must be mandatory, not optional, implementation remains patchy. Because the real bottleneck isn't the law — it's the capacity to apply it. As one stakeholder in one of our consultations, succinctly put it: 'Engineers don't know what's expected of them. And no one teaches them.' Developers, despite their central role in shaping the built environment, are not even mentioned in UBBL's accountability frameworks, in terms of the compliances they have to meet and the penalties in cases of non-compliance. And technical professionals including engineers and architects across the board rarely receive training in accessibility compliance. The result? Projects that, at most, check some legal boxes without meeting real-world needs. Buildings that pass inspections but fail people. There is an increasing temptation to correct this through penalties. But penalties cannot substitute education. The RPwD Act, 2016 does contain provisions for penalising non-compliance: Section 89 prescribes a fine of up to ₹10,000 for a first offence and ₹50,000 to ₹5 lakh for subsequent offences for any person who contravenes provisions of the Act, including accessibility mandates. The enforcement mechanism under the UBBL also leans heavily on punitive penalties while offering little in the way of structural accountability or institutional clarity, which should ideally include training, capacity building, accessibility licensing requirements, among others. Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, unauthorised construction — including deviations from sanctioned plans — can attract criminal penalties such as imprisonment for up to six months, fines up to ₹5,000, or both. Furthermore, the UBBL states that professionals, including engineers and architects, 'run the risk of having his/her licence cancelled' in cases of misrepresentation or deviation, and allows for delisting and public naming on authority websites, with information forwarded to the Council of Architecture for further action. What results is a framework that focuses on punishment in theory, but lacks the practical tools to ensure prevention, detection, or redress. Enforcement exists on paper, but accountability dissolves in practice. Yet, despite these legal tools and even with express legal provision, enforcement on the ground remains weak, inconsistent, and often tokenistic. Meaning legal coercion is clearly not working. Courts have also recognised this gap. In Nipun Malhotra vs GNCTD (2018), the Delhi High Court explicitly cited the lack of sensitisation among authorities regarding the rights of persons with disabilities. The court stressed that such ignorance often stems from a lack of training and education in accessibility standards. Similarly, in a complaint regarding inaccessible market areas in south Delhi, the Delhi State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, tasked with the implementation of the RPwD Act and adjudicating disputes under the same, ordered that not just municipal engineers and architects but even contractors and masons should be given structured accessibility training. Inclusion must be inculcated This is precisely why the DEPwD's MoU with NCERT and NIOS must not be viewed as an isolated reform, but rather as a foundational template for deeper, structural transformation across professional education. While school curricula now embed inclusion as a civic value, that same commitment must extend to higher education — particularly in architecture, engineering, and planning. Institutions such as the All India Council for Technical Education, the Council of Architecture, and other regulatory bodies must integrate accessibility not as a peripheral topic or optional module, but as a core design competency. Students should graduate not only with the ability to calculate structural loads or design building façades, but with the sensitivity and skills to plan tactile pathways for the visually challenged and ensure ramps are not just technically compliant, but genuinely usable. Because accessibility is not only a matter of compliance; it is a matter of compassion. Unless professionals are educated to internalise this ethos from school through university, no volume of policies, laws, or litigations will rectify the physical and social barriers we continue to cement into our cities. This is particularly urgent now, as in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme court to delineate the minimum non-negotiable standards for accessibility of built environment, the DEPwD called for public comments on a fresh draft of the Built Environment Accessibility Rules in May 2025. As much as the public comments are being collated and incorporated, as a positive step in disability governance, without parallel reform in education, another set of rules will only add to bureaucratic saturation — an ever-expanding stack of paperwork that does little to change what gets built on the ground. To avoid repeating the cycle of well-meaning but toothless compliance, the rulebook must be matched by a textbook — one that does not impose accessibility as a compliance burden, but inculcates it as a first nature. Anchal Bhatheja is a Research Fellow, Disability, Inclusion and Access Team, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy; Views are personal


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC upholds ED's provisional attachment of properties linked to multi-cr coal levy scam
R aipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed multiple petitions challenging the ED's provisional attachment of properties linked to the alleged multi-crore coal levy scam. The attached assets belonged to a former Officer on Special Duty to the then Chief minister, an IAS officer, and several businessmen arrested in the case. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld the ED's action, ruling that in money laundering cases, a presumption of a link between attached properties and proceeds of crime is valid in the absence of verifiable legal income. The bench stated that enforcement authorities are not required to produce direct evidence of such linkage, given the complex nature of financial transactions involved. The court found the ED's material—comprising financial analyses, timelines of property acquisition, and lack of legitimate income—sufficient to establish a prima facie nexus. It observed that the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was consistent with the legal framework under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and noted that the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo The bench also concurred with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the matter. The ED Raipur provisionally attached more than 100 movable and immovable properties—bank balances, vehicles, cash, jewellery, and land—belonging to businessman Suryakant Tiwari, his brother, and others, including Saumya Chaurasia, her brother Anurag Chaurasia, their mother, and IAS officer Sameer Vishnoi. Petitions challenging the attachments were filed by KJSL Coal Power and Indramani Minerals through their legal representatives. Special Public Prosecutor Dr Saurabh Kumar Pande represented the ED. The High Court earlier reserved its verdict after detailed hearings on 10 separate petitions and pronounced its judgment on Wednesday. The Appellate Tribunal previously upheld the ED's action, rejecting all appeals against a common order in the high-profile money laundering case. It emphasised that in such cases, direct proof of proceeds of crime (PoC) is not always required due to the indirect and layered nature of financial operations. Suryakant, based in Raipur, was named the alleged mastermind behind a syndicate involved in large-scale extortion. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) memorandum dated Sept 13, 2022—based on a DGIT (Investigation), Bhopal, report—flagged the matter for ED inquiry under Section 3 of the PMLA. The syndicate allegedly levied an illegal charge of Rs 25 per tonne for coal transport in Chhattisgarh, involving state mining and district officials. Tiwari was reportedly aided by govt functionaries including Saumya Chaurasia, former Deputy Secretary in CM's Office, and IAS officer Sameer Vishnoi. During the hearing, Dr Pande submitted that multiple witnesses deposed under Section 50 of the PMLA, stating that delivery orders (DOs) were issued only after a Rs 25 per tonne cash deposit. Vishnoi allegedly received approximately Rs 10.42 crore in kickbacks for switching from online to offline DOs. The money was said to be invested in companies purchased in the name of his wife. The ED also recovered Rs 22 lakh in cash from Vishnoi, which he could not satisfactorily account for, and found no credible source of income to justify the acquisition of the firms. The High Court dismissed the appeals as meritless, aligning with the conclusions of the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. However, the appellants retain the right to seek remedies under Section 8(8) of the PMLA.