New Income Tax Bill provides simple framework to enhance ease of doing biz: ICAI
The ICAI hailed the new Income Tax Bill, passed by Parliament, as a framework that simplifies taxation and boosts ease of doing business. Effective from April 1, 2026, the bill incorporates around 90 suggestions from ICAI, including AMT applicability and refund claim rules. ICAI believes this will make India a more attractive investment destination.
Agencies Representative AI Image Chartered accountants' apex body ICAI on Wednesday said the new Income Tax Bill provides a simple and clear framework that will enhance the ease of doing business and support India's goal of becoming the favoured investment destination. On Tuesday, Parliament passed a new income tax bill to replace the six-decade-old Income Tax Act, 1961, that will come into force from April 1, 2026. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) said the bill incorporates a significant number of suggestions from the Parliamentary Select Committee, which consulted ICAI and other stakeholders. Around 90 suggestions of the institute have been considered in the bill, ICAI said in a statement on Wednesday.
The suggestions included the applicability of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to only those persons who have claimed deductions in respect of certain income or investment-linked tax deduction, and removal of requirement to file return on or before due date for claiming refund.
"By streamlining the structure and provisions, the new Bill reflects the government's commitment to enhancing ease of doing business by providing a tax framework that is simple and clear, thus, supporting India's goal of becoming the favoured destination for investment," ICAI said. Other suggestions made were those related to the year of allowability of expenditure where tax deduction takes place in the subsequent year and the applicability of the presumptive rate of 6 per cent for receipts in online mode up to the due date of filing of return.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
33 minutes ago
- Mint
Resist American pressure but reform Indian agriculture
The partnership between the world's two largest democracies has repeatedly stumbled on one issue: agricultural market access. Trump wants India to open its doors to American farm products—from dairy, poultry and maize to apples, almonds and genetically modified crops. India resisted, wary of destabilizing its rural economy. This defiance is economically prudent and socially necessary. But shielding farmers from unfair competition is only half the battle. Without structural reform, Indian agriculture will remain inefficient and fiscally draining, slowing and even strangling our economic transformation. The US spends billions annually to prop up its agricultural sector through direct payments, crop insurance subsidies and price supports. Its 2018 Farm Bill alone authorized $867 billion over 10 years. These subsidies allow American producers to sell abroad at artificially low prices without fear of market volatility, the same practice that the US accuses China of. Also Read: Indian agriculture and dairy sectors are strong enough to withstand US tariff vagaries If India allowed unrestricted imports of such products, domestic prices for staples like dairy, poultry and maize might collapse. A 10-15% drop in farm-gate prices could wipe out the livelihood overnight of millions of small farmers—most with less than two hectares of farmland. The ripple effects would hit rural incomes, weaken demand, disrupt rural credit and threaten jobs in sectors that range from logistics and cold storage to food processing and retail. Our strategic autonomy is also at stake. A nation dependent on imported staples will be vulnerable to price shocks, export bans and geopolitical pressure. The covid pandemic and the Ukraine war showed how volatile global commodity markets can become. Maintaining the domestic production of essential foods is not just economic prudence—it is national security. Yet, barring unfair imports must not mean defending the status quo. Agriculture employs 42% of India's workforce but contributes only 18% of GDP. The average agricultural worker produces less than one-sixth the output of a worker in industry or services. We must shift a significant share of our workforce to other sectors. Also Read: Sow wisely: India can reap a lot more from its agricultural sector Politically-driven subsidies sustain this inefficiency. India spends over ₹4.5 trillion annually on farm-related subsidies—on fertilizers, power, irrigation and procurement under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system. The rural employment guarantee scheme adds to the bill. While often justified as poverty relief, these subsidies distort cropping patterns, harm the environment and crowd out investment in infrastructure and research. The MSP system entrenches overproduction of wheat and rice, depleting groundwater and making India reliant on costly imports of pulses and edible oils. Fertilizer subsidies encourage overuse, harming soil health and straining India's finances. Power subsidies promote inefficient irrigation and groundwater depletion. Subsidies rarely reach the poorest farmers in full, yet take a large share of agricultural budgets. Farm fragmentation compounds the problem. With farms shrinking below two hectares, mechanization and productivity gains are difficult. Land-leasing restrictions in many states block consolidation and efficient land use. Also Read: In charts: Why agriculture and dairy are sticking points in the India-US trade deal A competitive agricultural sector would thrive in an open market system by opting to compete, not hide behind tariff barriers or subsidies. To safeguard farmers, India must embrace reforms. These include: Adjusting MSP procurement to promote high-value commodities, easing water stress and improving nutrition; introducing enabling policies to encourage consolidation, mechanization and economies of scale; shifting from input subsidies to targeted investment in irrigation, cold storage and rural roads; building farm-to-market linkages and export-oriented clusters to raise incomes and create rural jobs; and expanding water-efficient irrigation, drought-resistant crops and regenerative agriculture practices. These reforms would enable Indian agriculture to compete on quality, cost and reliability, thus making market opening less contentious. India should not reject all agricultural imports, but what we import must be on our terms—under a calibrated tariff and quota system that protects vulnerable sectors while allowing targeted liberalization. Also Read: US puts hard terms on table, presents a take-it-or-leave-it offer; demands access to agriculture, dairy, pharma Any farm sector negotiations with the US should rest on three principles: A level-playing field: Imports from countries with high subsidies must face countervailing duties or quotas. Phased liberalization: Market opening should be gradual to allow farmers to adapt. Mutual benefit: Agricultural concessions must be balanced with gains in services or other competitive sectors. It's a reasonable stance. The US maintains tariff and non-tariff barriers while pressing others to open markets. Free trade can't mean a free rein for subsidized dumping. In trade policy, demands are often treated as bargaining chips. But in agriculture, the stakes go beyond trade balances—they involve the livelihoods of hundreds of millions, rural stability and food security. India must protect farmers from subsidized US competition, but it must not protect inefficiency. We need a defensive trade policy paired with aggressive reforms. India must recognize that perpetual state subsidies are as harmful as US tariffs. Both need to go. The author is a strategy and public policy professional. His X handle is @prasannakarthik
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
Pakistan Reintroduces Anti-Terrorism Act: Report
Islamabad: The National Assembly of Pakistan passed the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2024, restoring the provision of preventive detention for individuals suspected of terrorism, The Express Tribune reported on Tuesday. The amendment, which was passed on Wednesday, empowers both military and civil armed forces to detain individuals suspected of terrorism for up to three months. According to The Express Tribune, the bill, presented by Pakistani Minister of State for Interior and Narcotics Control Talal Chaudhry, was approved after a clause-by-clause reading, with the House rejecting proposed changes by Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F)'s Aliya Kamran and accepting an amendment from Pakistan Peoples Party's Syed Naveed Qamar. As per the amendment, Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), initially enacted in 2014 in the aftermath of the Peshawar Army Public School attack, had expired in 2016 due to a sunset clause, The Express Tribune reported. The latest amendment reintroduces this provision, allowing authorities to detain individuals based on credible intelligence or reasonable suspicion to preempt terrorist activities. The law also allows for the establishment of Joint Interrogation Teams (JITs), composed of members from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to carry out in-depth investigations and gather operational intelligence. According to the bill's statement of objectives, Pakistan's current security landscape demands stronger legal tools to empower the government, military, and law enforcement agencies in dealing with individuals posing a serious threat to national security, as reported by The Express Tribune. The bill was taken up for voting, with 125 members supporting the motion and 59 opposing it. As per the bill, as stated by The Express Tribune, sub-section (1) of Section 11EEEE allows detention beyond three months, subject to constitutional safeguards under Article 10, which protects against unlawful arrest and detention. A key revision to sub-section (1) of Clause 2 states: "The Government or, where the provisions of section 4 have been invoked, the armed forces or civil armed forces, as the case may be subject to the specific or general order of the Government in this regard, for a period not exceeding three months and after recording reasons thereof, issue order for the preventive detention of any person who has been concerned in any offence under this act relating to the security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, or public order relating to target killing, kidnapping for ransom, and extortion, bhatta, or the maintenance of supplies or services, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned, for purpose of inquiry," as quoted by The Express Tribune. Further amendments in sub-section (2) specify that any detention ordered by the armed or civil armed forces must be investigated by a Joint Investigation Team. This team would include a police officer not below the rank of SP, and members from intelligence, military, and other enforcement agencies. Additionally, a new provision (2A) declares that these powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) will remain in effect for three years from the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2025. Pakistani Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar clarified that this law is meant to be used selectively and includes checks. "A clause is being added to the bill stating that there are solid reasons for arrest. The arrested person will have to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours, and a clause has also been included to be enforceable for a specific period," he stated, as quoted by The Express Tribune. Reacting to the passage of the amendment, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan criticised the move, calling it a repeat of earlier legislation that infringes on "fundamental human rights".
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On Jammu And Kashmir Statehood Restoration Plea
The Supreme Court has issued a formal notice to the central government regarding a petition demanding the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within a specified timeframe. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, has scheduled the matter for hearing after two months while giving the Centre eight weeks to respond. The petition, filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi on behalf of academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argues that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism, which constitutes a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contend that successful peaceful assembly elections and general stability demonstrate that security concerns no longer justify the continued territorial status. During Thursday's proceedings, the applicants' counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referenced the Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling on Article 370's abrogation. He emphasized that the court had previously refrained from addressing statehood restoration only because the Solicitor General had assured that it would occur following elections. The petition seeks restoration within two months, though the petitioners expressed willingness to accept any reasonable timeline set by the court. However, the proceedings took a significant turn when the bench referenced the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, suggesting that ground realities must be considered in such decisions. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the court lacks comprehensive expertise in security matters and acknowledged that certain decisions fall within the government's prerogative to assess local conditions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the petition, characterizing it as non-maintainable and arguing that multiple considerations influence such decisions. He questioned the timing of raising this issue and requested the matter be postponed for eight weeks, indicating the government's reluctance to commit to immediate statehood restoration. The legal challenge emerges against the backdrop of significant constitutional changes implemented on August 5, 2019, when Parliament revoked Article 370's special status provisions and divided the former state into two Union Territories - Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Supreme Court's Constitution bench validated this action in December 2023, describing it as the culmination of Kashmir's integration process with India while recording the Centre's commitment to eventual statehood restoration. Assembly elections were subsequently conducted in three phases between September and October 2024, resulting in a National Conference-Congress coalition government with Omar Abdullah assuming the chief minister's position. This democratic exercise fulfilled the court's directive for elections by September 2024. Recent political developments have intensified speculation about the Centre's intentions. Chief Minister Abdullah recently expressed optimism about positive developments for Jammu and Kashmir during Parliament's current monsoon session. He has actively lobbied various political party leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, urging them to pressure the government for legislative action on statehood restoration. The Pahalgam incident, specifically referenced by the court, involved three terrorists who killed 25 tourists and a local operator on April 22. Security forces subsequently eliminated the attackers on July 28 in the Dachigam forest area. Intelligence confirmed the terrorists' Pakistani origins and their affiliation with Lashkar-e-Taiba. India's response included Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reportedly eliminating over 100 militants. The operation escalated into a four-day conflict involving airstrikes on Pakistani military installations before hostilities ceased on May 10 following bilateral understanding. The court's reference to this attack underscores the complex security considerations that continue to influence policy decisions regarding Jammu and Kashmir's administrative status, even as democratic processes have been successfully restored and local governance established.
