logo
Wealth edition 21-Jul-2025 to 27-july-2025

Wealth edition 21-Jul-2025 to 27-july-2025

Economic Times3 days ago
1. Plain in language, but legally?
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

No ICCs, no salary to staff: Cuttack administration tells HEIs
No ICCs, no salary to staff: Cuttack administration tells HEIs

New Indian Express

time41 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

No ICCs, no salary to staff: Cuttack administration tells HEIs

BHUBANESWAR: The Cuttack administration has decided to stop the salaries of all employees of colleges and higher secondary schools in the district till they submit the mandatory compliance reports on constitution of internal complaints committees (ICCs) under the POSH Act in their institutions. Principals of the colleges will also face suspension if they fail to ensure that the directive is followed. District collector Dattatraya Bhausaheb Shinde said the higher educational institutions have to ensure strict compliance of the government directive on ICCs and no delay will be tolerated in this regard. Following the self-immolation incident on the FM Autonomous College campus in Balasore on July 12, the Higher Education department had on July 15 directed all colleges and universities in the state to submit compliance reports on ICCs under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or the POSH Act, within 24 hours. The institutions were also directed to publicly display the names and contact details of ICC members for students' awareness. Subsequently, the Cuttack administration had asked for the compliance reports from principals of aided, non-aided government degree colleges and higher secondary schools and also sought details on complaints of sexual harassment made by students of the institutions so far. However, till July 21, no institution except Mahanga Women's College had submitted the report or case details following which the collector directed the additional district magistrate (ADM) and sub-collectors to withhold salaries of employees of defaulting institutions. 'Appropriate action may be taken against the head of defaulting institutions by withholding the salary of the entire establishment of the defaulting offices,' the collector's directive read. In addition, college principals were warned of suspension if complete ICC reports were not submitted within 24 hours. ADM Shibo Toppo said they have written to the heads of the institutions for the second time since July 15 seeking the ICC constitution reports, case details and action taken on such cases. There are 70 degree colleges and 131 higher secondary schools in Cuttack district. Following the warning, Cuttack City College submitted its report to the administration. There are close to 1,057 degree colleges and 17 universities in the state and till last week, nearly 500 of them had submitted the ICC compliance reports.

Best way to create terror is to disrupt Parliament: Delhi HC on 2023 breach case
Best way to create terror is to disrupt Parliament: Delhi HC on 2023 breach case

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

Best way to create terror is to disrupt Parliament: Delhi HC on 2023 breach case

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that disrupting the Parliament is the best way to create terror in India while hearing a bail petition filed by the accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case. The next hearing will take place on October 8. (PIB file photo) A bench of justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur made the remarks after Manoranjan D's counsel submitted that their act of opening smoke canisters inside the Parliament while raising slogans did not amount to terrorist act since the smoke was not obnoxious and their intention was to only highlight unemployment and not create terror. However, the bench said, 'The best way to create terror in India is to disrupt the Parliament. You disrupted the Parliament.' Also Read: Delhi high court grants bail to Neelam Azad, Mahesh Kumawat in 2023 Parliament breach case Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan, along with two other accused– Neelam Azad and Amol Shinde were accused of orchestrating a protest involving coloured smoke canisters on December 13, 2023. Sharma and Manoranjan had jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors' gallery, while Azad and Shinde protested outside. The four accused were immediately apprehended on December 13, 2023, while Kumawat and Jha surrendered before the police on December 14 and both were handed over to the special cell. The intrusion was planned to attract the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on issues such as inflation and poverty. It coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament and sparked questions about laxity in security. The police had charged the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The two had approached the high court against the trial court's order refusing to release them on bail. While Manoranjan had approached the court last year, Sagar approached the court on Thursday. Manoranjan in his plea had argued that the allegations against him were vague, no culpability could be attributed to him and Delhi Police wrongly invoked UAPA charges, since the offences under the same have not been made out in the present case. Sagar asserted that he was entitled to be released on bail on parity with the two co accused– Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, who were granted bail by the high court on July 2. The high court, while granting bail to Azad and Kumawat had deprecated their choice of place of protest, the bench had said that their protest was not a terrorist act. The court had said that their demonstrations were symbolic, in the nature of propagation of ideological messages and did not give a colour of substantial threat or terrorist intent. During the hearing on Thursday, the court also shot down the duo's contention of seeking bail on parity, noting that the two who were out on bail had protested outside the Parliament, while they were inside. 'You were inside the Parliament. There is no parity. You have to come on merits,' the bench said. The court, while asking Delhi police's lawyers– additional public prosecutor Ritesh Kumar Bahri and advocate Divya Yadav to file their response in Sharma's bail plea, fixed October 8 as the next date of hearing.

Opposition raises Delhi bulldozer action in Parl
Opposition raises Delhi bulldozer action in Parl

Hans India

timean hour ago

  • Hans India

Opposition raises Delhi bulldozer action in Parl

New Delhi The issue of bulldozer demolitions in Delhi sparked a heated debate in Parliament on Wednesday, with members of the opposition demanding an immediate halt to what they described as 'unjust and politically motivated' actions. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh submitted a notice under Rule 267 in the Rajya Sabha, seeking suspension of the day's scheduled business to discuss the issue. He alleged that the ongoing demolition drives in the national capital are targeting the poor and marginalized communities under the guise of anti-encroachment operations. Singh accused authorities of using bulldozers indiscriminately, razing homes and shops without proper notice or rehabilitation plans. He emphasized that the demolitions are not only violating human rights but also leading to significant distress for families already struggling with poverty. 'The bulldozer has become a symbol of fear in Delhi. Homes are being destroyed without warning, and people are being rendered homeless overnight,' Singh said, urging Parliament to intervene and stop the operations immediately. Several opposition MPs supported Singh's demand and criticized the government for allegedly using administrative machinery for political vendetta. They called for a thorough debate in the House and questioned the selective targeting of certain neighborhoods. Meanwhile, government sources maintain that the demolitions are part of routine anti-encroachment drives to clear illegal constructions and reclaim public land. They argue that due process is being followed in all such actions. The uproar led to disruptions in the House proceedings, with the opposition staging protests and demanding accountability. The issue is likely to dominate discussions in the coming days as political tensions over governance and public welfare continue to rise in the capital.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store