Wealth edition 21-Jul-2025 to 27-july-2025
Live Events
2. Tedious TDS compliance
3. Faceless assessments issues
4. Belated returns & refund panic
5. Delay in appeals continues
6. Digital enforcement sans rights
7. Family ownership
The new Income Tax Bill , 2025 is touted as a long-overdue rewrite of the Income Tax Act , 1961. Tabled in Parliament on 13 February, it is leaner—nearly half the word count of the old Act—visually cleaner, and organised into schedules and tables for easy navigation. The Select Committee examining the Bill is likely to table its report on 21 July with 285 recommendations, as the monsoon session of Parliament begins.This brevity is welcome, but the real question is: has the law become easier to comply with, or just easier to read? For most salaried individuals, pensioners, HUFs, and small businesses—the bulk of India's taxpayers— clean language alone isn't enough. They seek a system that's truly easier: fewer hurdles, faster resolutions, and fairer treatment. Let's explore certain key areas that reveal the difference between surface-level simplification and real compliance ease.The Bill does try to replace certain complicated legal jargons with easier-to-understand English counterparts. It replaces the confusing dual year concepts of 'assessment year' and 'previous year' with a uniform 'tax year'. Similarly, 'notwithstanding anything' makes way for the simpler phrase 'irrespective of'. However, the Bill does little to demystify these provisions for average taxpayers.The brevity is mainly due to smart formatting. Long subsections, provisos and explanations have been recast into separate schedules and tables. While it improves readability, core legal complexities remain: e.g., bulky clauses of eligible saving and investment avenues in Section 80C of the existing Act are now part of Schedule XV, with a shorter main provision under Section 123 in the Bill—thus streamlining form, not substance.The Bill retains the substantive core of the existing Act. The five heads of income remain unchanged, as does the computational architecture. Key reliefs and thresholds, including the `12-lakh exemption in the new tax regime, are still there. This ensures continuity but also retains historical complexities. Areas like capital gains, holding periods, asset classification, overlapping exemptions under sections 54, 54EC, 54F, and fair market value (FMV) rules are untouched and navigating them demands expertise.The new tabular layout for tax deduction at source (TDS) provisions—listing rates, thresholds, and deductee types—reduces confusion, but procedural pain points persist. Refunds of excess TDS mistakenly deducted and deposited by deductors still require manual follow-up, suffer delays, and lack transparency. The Bill misses an opportunity to mandate automatic system-driven refunds for over-deductions.In the current Act, Section 144B outlines faceless assessment in legislative detail.But the new Bill relegates this whole framework to executive rule-making under Section 273. By making it a government-notified scheme instead of embedding it in the law, the Bill lowers parliamentary oversight. It may offer administrative flexibility but dilutes legislative sanctity and taxpayer protection. Faceless reassessments, appeals and penalty proceedings are similarly diluted, raising worries on transparency and legal sanctity.While Section 263 of the Bill, corresponding to Section 139 of the Act, mandates return filing by specified taxpayers on or before due date, it also adds a new category—any person seeking to claim a refund must now file their return by the due date. This requirement has no parallel in Section 139 of the current Act.Section 239 of the current law allows refund claims through any return filed as per Section 139, including belated or revised returns. In the new Bill, Section 263(1)(a)(ix) disqualifies returns filed after the due date from claiming refunds, thus barring belated or revised returns from claiming refunds. Unless clarified or amended, this provision is a regressive departure and risks unfairly denying refunds to honest but delayed filers.Taking cognizance of this, the Select Committee has reportedly recommended for the deletion of this clause.Under both laws, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 'may' dispose of appeals within a year. In reality, it often takes 4-5 years. Refunds get stuck, and justice is delayed. The current draft of the Bill does not make this timeline mandatory.While strengthening enforcement by authorising access to digital footprint, cloud data, and personal devices, the Bill raises privacy concerns. Strong oversight and clear limits must check the powers given.Families today often share ownership and income. But the tax law still treats each individual in isolation, leading to misattributed income or unwanted clubbing. The Bill missed an opportunity to allow for declaration-based beneficial ownership or joint filings. While enforcement adapts to the digital era, compliance is stuck in the past.True simplification must entail easier TDS compliances and regime choices, faster refunds, timely appeals, privacy safeguards, and rules reflect real financial lives. Until these changes follow, the burden on honest taxpayers may remain largely unchanged.

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


News18
37 minutes ago
- News18
BCCI Under RTI: Long-Stalled Sports Bill To Be Tabled Today, Likely To Clear Parliament
Last Updated: Despite not receiving government funding, the BCCI, like other national sports bodies, will have to comply with regulations set out by the sports ministry once the bill is enacted Union sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya is set to introduce the highly anticipated National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday. The legislation, focused on athlete welfare and systemic reform, represents a significant step towards transparency and accountability in Indian sports governance. A key provision of the bill is to bring all national sports bodies, including the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This long-debated and previously resisted move is expected to finally become law, ending years of delay and political pushback. A previous attempt during the UPA era by then sports minister Ajay Maken failed due to opposition within his own party. Despite not receiving government funding, the BCCI, like other national sports federations, will be required to comply with the regulations set out by the sports ministry once the bill is enacted. This is particularly significant as the Indian cricket team prepares to compete at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, which will place the BCCI within the framework of a national sports federation. 'It wasn't easy to bring the BCCI on board, but extensive dialogue was held between lawmakers and the BCCI top brass to ensure their cooperation," a source involved in the legislative process told CNN-News18. 'The government's intent is clear: to instill accountability and transparency across all sports federations in the country." Once enacted, the bill will mandate all recognised sports bodies to comply with the RTI Act, opening up access to decision-making processes, financial records, and governance structures to the public. The National Sports Governance Bill, 2025, aims to overhaul the Indian sports ecosystem through a series of structural reforms, including legal clarity, gender equality, athlete empowerment, and enhanced public oversight. More than just a legal framework, the bill signals the dawn of a new era where athletes are not just competitors but active stakeholders in India's sporting future. India's sports sector has long been plagued by controversies such as mismanagement, opaque elections in sports federations, and poor athlete representation. With over 350 court cases pending across federations, the judiciary has consistently urged the government to legislate a comprehensive governance structure. Efforts to introduce such a bill date back to 2011, but progress was repeatedly blocked by legal challenges, shifting political priorities, and unresolved court interventions. The Delhi High Court's endorsement of the 2011 Sports Code and pending litigations around the 2017 draft further stalled momentum. Officials believe that beyond governance reform, the bill will also contribute to employment generation, better protection for athletes—especially women and minors—and a more ethical, competitive, and globally aligned sporting culture in India. First Published: July 23, 2025, 01:42 IST Latest News Bangladesh Air Force's F-7 BGI that crashed was a Chinese copy of the MiG-21 Breaking News Sports BCCI Under RTI: Long-Stalled Sports Bill To Be Tabled Today, Likely To Clear Parliament Cricket Harmanpreet's Century, Gaud's 6-Fer Help IND Beat ENG, Clinch ODI Series 2-1 Hollywood Benny Blanco Posts Selena Gomez's Sleeping Pics On Her Birthday: 'Never Waking U Up' news DOJ Seeks Meeting With Epstein's Ex Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump Calls It An "Appropriate" Move latest news


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Centre: No Samagra Shiksha funds for TN for FY 2024-25
Chennai: Tamil Nadu did not receive a single rupee from Union govt under Samagra Shiksha for 2024-25, according to information submitted to Parliament by Union ministry of education. Answering a query raised by DMK MP Ganapathy Rajkumar on withholding funds under the scheme for some states, Union minister of state Jayant Chaudhary on Monday said the funds under Samagra Shiksha are released based on fulfilment of guidelines prescribed by Union ministry of finance. Union govt withheld its share of Samagra Shiksha funds to the tune of 2,151crore for 2024-25 for the state, citing its opposition to following the three-language formula in PM SHRI schools. The reply also showed that Kerala and West Bengal also did not receive any funds under the scheme from Union govt for the 2024-25 financial year. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai Educationists have condemned this, saying Union govt has committed injustice towards the children of these three states. "It is a breach of the constitutional obligation of the federal govt to the constituent states. It is a total violation of the Right to Education Act that obligates govts to ensure children get their education up to the age of 14," senior educationist V Vasanthi Devi said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Up to 70% off | Shop Sale Libas Undo She also said the three opposition-ruled states have been singled out for the denial of funds. "Union govt cannot force its policy on any state govt as education is in the concurrent list. Union govt has the power to prescribe the standards in higher education," said P B Prince Gajendrababu, general secretary, State Platform for Common School System.


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Income tax tribunal upholds Rs 199 crore tax demand against Congress
In a setback to Indian National Congress (INC), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, which upheld a tax assessment of over Rs 199 crore for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of tax exemption under Section 13A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing the party's failure to file its income tax return by the due date and the receipt of cash donations exceeding the prescribed limit. The case originated when the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, assessed the INC's income at Rs 199 crore, despite the party declaring "Nil" income. This assessment was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). A key contention was the timing of the INC's tax return. For Assessment Year 2018-19, the due date for filing income tax returns for political parties was initially September 30, 2018, later extended to December 31, 2018. However, the Indian National Congress filed its return on February 2, 2019, which the tax authorities deemed to be beyond the prescribed due date under Section 139(4B) of the Act. Section 13A's second proviso specifically mandates that a political party must furnish its return of income by the due date under Section 139(4B) to avail tax exemption. The second major point of contention was the receipt of cash donations. The Assessing Officer found that the INC had received Rs 14.49 lakh in cash from various persons, with each donation exceeding Rs 2,000. Section 13A(d) of the Act strictly prohibits political parties from receiving donations exceeding Rs 2,000 in cash, mandating transactions through account payee cheque, bank draft, electronic clearing system, or electoral bond. The tax department argued that the party's own balance sheet recorded these as "donations". The INC argued that its return, filed on February 2, 2019, was within the extended time limit available under Section 139(4) of the Act, and that a belated return should not lead to the disallowance of exemption under Section 13A. The party also attempted to differentiate between "voluntary contributions" and "donations," stating that the cash receipts were voluntary contributions and not donations, an argument rejected by the tax authorities. However, the ITAT's order sided with the revenue department, reinforcing the strict compliance required by political parties to claim tax exemptions under Section 13A. The tribunal's decision underlines the importance of adhering to both timely filing requirements and the prescribed modes for receiving donations to qualify for tax exemptions. The appeal of the Indian National Congress was dismissed, confirming the disallowance of the claimed Rs 199.15 crore exemption.