Wednesday, May 6, 2026

TDS on Payments to Non-Residents under Section 195: When DTAA Means “No TDS”

 By CA Surekha Ahuja

Introduction

TDS on payments to non-residents under Section 195 remains one of the most critical and litigated areas in international taxation.

While many practitioners limit their approach to applying a standard DTAA rate (often 10%), the law provides a far more fundamental principle:

If income is not chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act or applicable DTAA, TDS is not required at all.

This situation commonly arises in:

  • No Permanent Establishment (PE) scenarios under Article 7 (Business Profits)
  • Cases where income is fully exempt under DTAA provisions

This guide provides a comprehensive and practical understanding of:

  • When TDS becomes NIL under DTAA
  • Documentation required to sustain such positions
  • Practical illustrations under India–US DTAA
  • Treatment in Form 27Q
  • Judicial position on Section 195 vs DTAA
  • Common pitfalls in “no-TDS under DTAA” claims

When is TDS Not Applicable under Section 195?

TDS under Section 195 is not applicable where the payment to a non-resident is not chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax Act or the applicable DTAA.

Legal Position: Section 195 and DTAA (Section 90(2))

  • Section 195 applies only where income is chargeable to tax in India
  • Section 90(2) allows the assessee to apply more beneficial DTAA provisions

Core Principle:
No taxability = No TDS obligation

Thus, DTAA may:

  • Reduce the rate of TDS, or
  • Completely eliminate taxability → TDS = 0%

When Does DTAA Result in Zero TDS?

ScenarioDTAA ProvisionTDS Position
Business profits with no PE in IndiaArticle 7No TDS
Royalty / FTS fully exempt under DTAARelevant DTAA provisionsNo TDS
Interest / dividend fully exemptTreaty-specific clausesNo TDS
Income not taxable in India under Section 9 read with DTAASource + treaty overrideNo TDS

Does DTAA Override Section 195?

Yes. Under Section 90(2), DTAA provisions override the Income-tax Act where they are more beneficial, including cases where taxability is completely eliminated.

Documentation for “No TDS under DTAA”

A nil TDS position must be supported by robust documentation:

DocumentPurpose
Tax Residency Certificate (TRC)Establish treaty eligibility
Form 10F / declarationCapture TIN, address, legal status
No PE declarationConfirm absence of PE in India
Contracts and invoicesEstablish nature of income
Internal memoRecord legal reasoning
Section 195(2) / 197 application (if required)Risk mitigation

Note: Where TRC and prescribed details are available, Rule 37BC prevents higher TDS under Section 206AA. In cases of no taxability, TDS itself is zero.

India–US DTAA: Practical Illustrations

Business Profits – No PE

  • US company provides services remotely
  • No Permanent Establishment in India
  • Covered under Article 7

Result: Not taxable in India → No TDS under Section 195

Royalty vs Business Income – Critical Distinction

Nature of PaymentDTAA TreatmentTDS
Royalty (use of IP, copyright, patent)Article 1210%
Software / service income (no PE)Article 7No TDS

Correct classification is crucial—mischaracterisation may convert a nil TDS position into a taxable one.

How to Report NIL TDS in Form 27Q

Even where TDS is not deducted, compliance must be maintained:

  • Record all cross-border payments
  • Classify the nature of income
  • Maintain supporting documentation (TRC, PE declaration, internal memo)
  • Report transactions in Form 27Q with TDS = 0
  • Apply under Section 195(2) / 197 in case of doubt

There is no separate NIL-TDS return; Form 27Q captures such reporting.

Is Form 27Q Required if No TDS is Deducted?

Yes. Payments to non-residents should be reported in Form 27Q even if TDS is NIL, supported by proper documentation to justify non-deduction.

Judicial Position: Section 195 vs DTAA

The courts have consistently clarified:

  • TDS arises only when income is chargeable to tax in India
  • DTAA provisions prevail where beneficial

In GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, the Supreme Court held:

TDS obligation under Section 195 exists only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India.

Implication:
If DTAA removes taxability (e.g., no PE), no TDS is required.

Common Pitfalls in “No TDS under DTAA” Claims

PitfallRiskMitigation
Mischaracterising royalty as business incomeTax demandAlign substance with documentation
Ignoring PE exposureHidden tax liabilityConduct PE analysis
Invalid or missing TRCDTAA benefit deniedObtain valid TRC
Lack of documentationDisallowance riskMaintain internal memo
Ignoring treaty updatesIncorrect positionRefer latest DTAA text

Quick Summary: When is TDS Zero?

ConditionTDSReason
Business profits with no PENILNot taxable in India
DTAA-exempt incomeNILTreaty override
No India-source incomeNILNot chargeable

FAQs

Can DTAA eliminate TDS completely?
Yes. If income is not taxable in India under DTAA (e.g., no PE), TDS is not applicable.

Is PAN mandatory for DTAA benefit?
No, where TRC and prescribed details are available as per Rule 37BC.

What is the TDS rate for foreign companies under DTAA?
It depends on the nature of income—commonly 10%, but can be 0% where income is not taxable in India.

Conclusion

DTAA is not merely a rate-reduction mechanism—it is a taxability filter.

Before applying TDS under Section 195:

  • First determine taxability under DTAA
  • Apply TDS only if income is chargeable

Because in international taxation:

Where there is no taxability, there is no TDS.

Compliance Calendar – May 2026 Strategic Due-Date Tracker for MSMEs, Startups & Professionals

 May 2026 is a high-intensity compliance month, with multiple deadlines converging across Income Tax, GST, labour laws, corporate filings, and FEMA reporting. For MSMEs and startups, this is not merely a checklist month—it is a test of discipline, cash-flow planning, and reporting accuracy.

A structured view of due dates helps avoid interest costs, late fees, and regulatory notices, while ensuring smooth financial and operational continuity. Below is a department-wise, practical compliance calendar designed for execution—not just reference.

Income Tax – May 2026

Date / TimelineForm / SectionCompliance Particulars
07 May 2026TDS/TCS – PaymentDeposit TDS/TCS for April 2026 (non-government deductors)
07 May 2026Sec. 394(2) DeclarationBuyer’s declaration for obtaining goods without collection of tax for April 2026
By 15 May 2026Sec. 194-IA / 194-IB / 194M etc.Issue TDS certificates for tax deducted in March 2026
15 May 2026 Form 27EQQuarterly TCS statement for quarter ended 31 March 2026
30 May 2026TCS CertificatesIssue of TCS certificates for Q4 of FY 2025-26
30 May 2026Sec. 285BAnnual statement under section 285B for PY 2025-26
30 May 2026Sec. 393(1)Challan-cum-statement of TDS for April 2026
31 May 2026 Forms 24Q / 26Q / 27QQuarterly TDS statements (Q4: Jan–Mar 2026) for FY 2025-26

GST – May 2026

1 Regular & QRMP Returns / Payments

Date / TimelineFormCompliance Particulars
10 May 2026GSTR-7Monthly TDS return under GST for April 2026
10 May 2026GSTR-8Monthly TCS return by e-commerce operators for April 2026
11 May 2026GSTR-1 (Monthly)Outward supply return for April 2026 (turnover > ₹5 crore)
13 May 2026IFF (QRMP)Optional outward supplies reporting for April 2026
20 May 2026GSTR-3BMonthly summary return for April 2026 (turnover > ₹5 crore)
25 May 2026PMT-06Monthly GST payment for April 2026 (QRMP taxpayers ≤ ₹5 crore)

2 Special GST Returns / Statements

Date / TimelineFormCompliance Particulars
13 May 2026GSTR-5 / 5AReturn for non-resident taxable persons / OIDAR providers – April 2026
13 May 2026GSTR-6ISD return for April 2026
28 May 2026GSTR-11Statement of inward supplies by UIN holders (April 2026)
RollingRFD-10Refund application by specified persons (within 2 years from relevant quarter end)

EPF & ESI – May 2026

Date / TimelineLaw / ReturnCompliance Particulars
15 May 2026 EPF – ECR + PaymentDeposit EPF contribution and file ECR for April 2026 wages
15 May 2026 ESI – Contribution ReturnDeposit ESI contribution and file monthly return for April 2026

ROC / MCA – May 2026

Date / TimelineFormCompliance Particulars
30 May 2026LLP Form 11Annual return of LLP for FY 2025-26
30 May 2026PAS-6Half-yearly Reconciliation of Share Capital Audit Report (Oct 2025 – Mar 2026)
30 May 2026FC-4*Annual return of foreign companies having a place of business in India (if applicable)

FEMA / RBI – May 2026

Date / TimelineFormCompliance Particulars
Within 7 working days from end of monthECB-2Monthly ECB return for April 2026 through RBI online portal

Key Focus for MSMEs & Startups

DateCompliance Impact
15 May 2026 PF/ESI + TCS + TDS certificates – cash flow + multi-law compliance pressure
31 May 2026 Q4 TDS returns – high penalty exposure + scrutiny trigger

Compliance is not about tracking every date—
it is about controlling the dates that can impact your business the most.

In May 2026, most deadlines are routine—
but 15 May and 31 May are decisive.

Why Capital Cannot Replace Discipline: The Real Reason Startups Fail While Bootstrapped Businesses Endure

By CA Surekha Ahuja

In the startup ecosystem, capital is often mistaken for proof of success. A funding round is treated like validation, valuations become headlines, and aggressive expansion is confused with maturity. Yet business history keeps reminding us of a harder truth: capital can accelerate a business, but it cannot correct its character.

A business can be funded. It cannot be funded into discipline.

That one distinction explains why many venture-backed startups collapse under pressure while countless bootstrapped businesses, family enterprises, and self-funded ventures quietly survive, compound, and endure over decades. The market often glorifies speed. But in business, survival has always been a more reliable indicator of strength than speed. Because speed without structure is not progress. It is accelerated risk.

Capital Is Fuel, Not the Engine

Funding is often misunderstood. Money is not the business. It is only a resource serving the business.

If the underlying model is weak, capital does not solve the weakness — it magnifies it. A flawed engine with more fuel does not travel farther. It crashes faster.

This is the pattern the business world has witnessed repeatedly: a startup raises capital, scales rapidly, hires aggressively, acquires customers at any cost, offers unsustainable discounts, spends heavily on visibility, and celebrates growth metrics.

For a while, the numbers look impressive. Revenue rises. Users increase. Valuation expands. Media visibility grows. The founder becomes the face of ambition.

But beneath that momentum lies the real question: is the business structurally sound?

When the market shifts, capital tightens, customer acquisition costs rise, margins shrink, or investor patience fades, the answer emerges. Many businesses do not fail because they lacked vision. They fail because they lacked discipline.

The Dangerous Illusion of Funding

One of the most common strategic mistakes founders make is confusing investment with validation.

Investment validates possibility. It does not validate sustainability.

Investors may fund market opportunity, founder conviction, category potential, or speed of execution. But none of these independently guarantees a viable business. A persuasive pitch can attract capital. Only disciplined execution creates survival.

This confusion leads to predictable mistakes: spending before understanding, scaling before stabilizing, hiring before process maturity, marketing before retention clarity, and expansion before profitability visibility.

The logic becomes dangerously simple: “Growth will solve it.”

But growth solves very little when the foundation itself is unstable. If customer acquisition cost exceeds customer lifetime value, scaling multiplies the loss. If margins are weak, larger volume deepens the structural weakness. If collections are poor, revenue growth becomes accounting comfort, not financial strength.

Scale does not heal broken economics. It industrializes them.

Why Bootstrapped Businesses Think Differently

Bootstrapped businesses operate under a different discipline structure.

They cannot afford illusion.
Every expense is personal.
Every mistake is expensive.
Every inefficiency hurts immediately.

This forces founders into economic realism from day one. They ask better questions earlier:

  • Is this customer profitable?
  • Can this model sustain itself?
  • How quickly does cash return?
  • Can this business survive without external money?
  • Is expansion operationally justified?

These questions are not defensive. They are foundational. And the answers create discipline. Discipline creates efficiency. Efficiency creates resilience. Resilience creates longevity.

That is why thousands of Indian family businesses, trading houses, manufacturing enterprises, service firms, and regional consumer brands continue surviving across generations without ever appearing in startup headlines.

They may lack glamour. But they possess something markets respect more over time: durability.

The Bootstrap Advantage Nobody Talks About

Bootstrapping creates operational intelligence.

When money is limited, management quality improves. Decision-making becomes sharper. Cost structures become tighter. Customer relationships become deeper. Waste becomes visible. Priorities become clearer.

In many funded startups, capital often delays the pain of bad decisions. In bootstrapped businesses, pain is immediate. And immediate pain is an excellent teacher.

This is why bootstrapped founders often understand their business better than heavily funded founders. They have lived every weakness directly — not through reports, not through dashboards, but through consequence.

The Real Market Evidence

The business landscape has repeatedly demonstrated this distinction. Across sectors such as food delivery, edtech, mobility, direct-to-consumer brands, and quick commerce, several highly funded businesses achieved explosive growth but struggled when profitability became non-negotiable.

The business model looked attractive when capital was abundant. But when funding cycles tightened and market discipline returned, many models showed their weakness.

Burn-heavy growth works only as long as someone funds the burn. The moment that support slows, economics become visible. And economics are brutally honest.

The market eventually asks one question:

Can this business survive on business income alone?

That is the ultimate test — not valuation, not funding, not visibility, but survival.

The Silent Strength of Traditional Businesses

Compare this with the ordinary Indian entrepreneur: a manufacturer in a small industrial town, a wholesaler in a local market, a retailer expanding carefully, or a service professional building reputation over years.

These businesses rarely receive applause. But they often build what startups spend years trying to achieve:

  • Stable cash flows.
  • Customer trust.
  • Operational predictability.
  • Financial discipline.
  • Intergenerational continuity.

They expand only after proving stability, not before. That sequencing matters. Because disciplined growth compounds. Unstructured growth collapses.

What Shark Tank Quietly Teaches Every Founder

Entrepreneurial television has made business conversations mainstream. But beyond the entertainment, it quietly teaches an important lesson: investors do not buy excitement. They buy economics.

Behind every compelling pitch, the serious questions remain:

  • What is the gross margin?
  • What is the repeat purchase behavior?
  • What is customer acquisition cost?
  • What is customer retention?
  • What is the contribution margin?
  • What is the path to profitability?
  • What operational risks exist?

That is why many brilliant products fail to secure investment. And many simple businesses attract serious capital. Because business attractiveness is not built on novelty alone. It is built on economic logic.

Investors accelerate. They do not rescue.
Mentors guide. They do not repair.
Capital supports. It does not substitute discipline.

The Founder’s Strategic Framework

Before chasing funding, founders must build business architecture. That architecture should rest on five non-negotiables:

Demand before scale
Prove that customers genuinely want the product.

Unit economics before expansion
Know whether every transaction creates value.

Cash flow before valuation
Cash sustains. Valuation only signals expectation.

Governance before complexity
Messy systems become expensive at scale.

Compliance before capital events
Weak legal and financial structures create future instability.

This is where strategic financial advisors become indispensable. A founder does not merely need funding strategy. A founder needs financial discipline architecture. Because businesses rarely collapse due to lack of ideas. They collapse due to poor financial design.

The Most Dangerous Sentence in Startup Culture

There is one sentence that has destroyed more businesses than competition:

“We’ll fix it after scaling.”

It sounds practical. It is often fatal.

Because what remains weak at a smaller level becomes dangerous at scale. You cannot scale confusion. You cannot scale weak margins. You cannot scale broken processes. You cannot scale bad customer economics. You cannot scale governance failure.

Scaling amplifies reality. It does not improve it.

The Ultimate Business Truth

Capital can buy speed. But speed without discipline creates acceleration toward risk. Capital can buy market access. But market access without retention creates leakage. Capital can buy visibility. But visibility without viability creates illusion. Capital can buy growth. But growth without profitability creates dependence.

Discipline, however, creates something capital cannot purchase:

  • clarity,
  • control,
  • efficiency,
  • resilience,
  • survival.

And in business, survival is not a small achievement. Survival is the foundation of legacy.

Final Thought: Build for Endurance, Not Applause

The business world often celebrates the loudest founders, the largest raises, and the fastest growth. But long after headlines disappear, only one question matters:

Did the business survive?

Because business is not a sprint of valuation. It is a marathon of discipline.

Bootstrapped businesses often survive not because they are conservative, but because they are structurally honest. They respect cash. They respect margins. They respect consequences. And that respect creates strength.

In the end, founders must understand this clearly: raising money is not the victory. Building a business that does not constantly need rescue — that is the victory.

Because in business, real strength is never measured by how much capital you attract. It is measured by how little waste you create and how long you can endure.

And endurance, not excitement, is what ultimately builds legacy


Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Capital Gains on Surrender of Tenancy Rights in Redevelopment: Taxability, Timing of Transfer, Section 54F, Cost of Acquisition and Subsequent Sale Implications

 By CA Surekha Ahuja

A Framework on Taxation of Tenancy Rights in Redevelopment Transactions

Redevelopment transactions involving old tenanted premises, pagdi structures, protected occupancies, cessed buildings, cooperative societies and tripartite development arrangements continue to be one of the most litigated areas in capital gains taxation.

The core issue is not whether surrender of tenancy rights is taxable.

The core issue is:

When does the transfer legally occur for capital gains purposes?

This single determination impacts:

  • year of taxation
  • quantum of capital gains
  • availability of exemption
  • classification of receipts
  • future cost base of redeveloped property

Recent judicial guidance consistently supports one principle:

Where tenancy rights are contractually preserved until possession of alternate accommodation, the taxable transfer arises only upon actual surrender and not on execution of the redevelopment agreement.

Statutory Framework (Income-tax Act, 1961 + Corresponding Provisions under Income-tax Act, 2025)

For continuity during transition, both references are provided:

FunctionIncome-tax Act, 1961Corresponding Provision (Income-tax Act, 2025 – indicative mapping)
Capital asset definitionSection 2(14)Definition of “capital asset”
Definition of transferSection 2(47)“Transfer / deemed transfer events”
Capital gains chargeSection 45“Charge of capital gains”
Computation mechanismSection 48“Computation of capital gains”
Cost of acquisition rulesSection 55“Cost determination provisions”
Non-cash consideration valuationSection 50D“Fair valuation principle provision”
Exemption on residential reinvestmentSection 54F“Residential reinvestment exemption provision”

Legal Status of Tenancy Rights

Tenancy rights are treated as capital assets because they constitute enforceable property rights.

Included forms:

  • Pagdi tenancy rights
  • Protected tenancy rights
  • Statutory tenancy rights
  • Occupancy rights under old agreements
  • Redevelopment-linked occupancy rights

Thus, surrender = transfer under capital gains framework.

Core Legal Issue: Timing of Transfer in Redevelopment

Redevelopment typically involves multiple stages:

  1. Execution of redevelopment agreement
  2. Approvals and permissions
  3. Temporary shifting / transit occupation
  4. Vacation of original premises
  5. Construction phase
  6. Delivery of alternate flat
  7. Final settlement / extinguishment

Legal Test

The decisive test is:

When are tenancy rights actually extinguished in law and in fact?

If the agreement provides that tenancy continues until possession of alternate accommodation, then:

  • execution alone does not trigger transfer
  • tax arises only on actual possession/surrender

Transfer Timing Matrix
Fact PatternTax Timing Position
Tenancy continues till alternate flat possessionTax on possession date
Immediate irrevocable surrender on executionTax on execution
Transit accommodation onlyNo final transfer yet
Cash settlement replacing flat laterSeparate taxable event
Modified arrangementFact-based determination

Why Section 56 Generally Does Not Apply

Receipt of an alternate flat or corpus is not a gift.

It is consideration for surrender of a capital asset.

SituationCorrect Head of Income
Flat in exchange for tenancy rightsCapital gains
Corpus / compensation linked to surrenderCapital gains
Pure gratuitous benefitSection 56 (rare)

Valuation Principle (Section 50D Equivalent Framework)

Where consideration is in kind:

ComponentValuation Basis
New flatFair market value (FMV)
CorpusActual amount
Additional area / amenitiesFMV if embedded in consideration

Cost of Acquisition Framework

(A) Tenancy Rights
SituationCost Treatment
Purchased tenancyActual cost
Pagdi arrangementActual paid amount
Old/inherited tenancyReconstruction required

Supporting evidence:

  • rent receipts
  • pagdi documents
  • landlord confirmations
  • society records
  • succession documents

(B) Redeveloped Flat (Critical Correction Included)

A frequent error in practice is treating cost as arbitrary or nil.

Correct principle:

Cost of redeveloped flat = Fair Market Value on date of acquisition (possession/allotment under redevelopment)

This ensures correct computation on future sale.

Illustrations 

Illustration 1: Taxability on Surrender of Tenancy Rights
ParticularsValue
Original tenancy cost (2001)₹8,00,000
Redevelopment agreement2024
Tenancy continues till possessionYes
Possession of new flat2027
FMV of new flat (2027)₹2,20,00,000

Computation:

Full value of consideration = ₹2.20 crore

Less: Indexed cost of acquisition of tenancy rights (assumed illustration basis)

Assume indexation factor (illustrative only):
₹8,00,000 × 3.5 = ₹28,00,000

Capital Gain:

₹2,20,00,000 − ₹28,00,000 = ₹1,92,00,000

✔ Tax year: 2027–28
✔ Not 2024–25

Illustration 2: Sale of Redeveloped Flat

ParticularsValue
FMV at acquisition (cost base)₹2,20,00,000
Sale price after 3 years₹3,00,00,000

Capital Gain:

₹3,00,00,000 − ₹2,20,00,000
= ₹80,00,000

✔ Holding period starts from 2027 possession date
✔ Not from original tenancy inception

Illustration 3: Section 54F (Tax Saving Impact)
ParticularsValue
LTCG on surrender₹1.92 crore
Investment in new residential flat₹2.20 crore

Outcome:

If conditions of Section 54F are satisfied:

  • Entire or substantial exemption may be available
  • Subject to ownership restrictions and timing compliance

Tax Planning Strategies (High Practical Value)

1. Drafting for Timing Control

Ensure clause:

tenancy continues until possession of alternate flat

Effect:

  • defers taxability
  • strengthens LTCG position

2. Preserve Cost Evidence

Without historical cost:

  • taxable gain increases significantly
  • litigation risk increases

3. Pre-transaction Section 54F evaluation

Check:

  • number of residential properties
  • eligibility conditions
  • reinvestment structure

4. Separate all receipts

Never merge:

  • transit rent
  • corpus
  • shifting charges
  • hardship compensation
  • amenities value

5. Obtain FMV valuation

Critical for:

  • capital gains computation
  • future sale protection
  • litigation defence

Tax Treatment of Receipts
Receipt TypeTreatment Position
Transit rentFact-dependent
CorpusCapital-linked
Shifting chargesReimbursement
Delay compensationCase-specific
Interest paymentsRevenue risk

Section 45(5A) Clarification

CategoryApplicability
Landowner in JDAMay apply
Tenant in redevelopmentGenerally not applicable

Tenant taxation remains under normal capital gains provisions.

Litigation Risk Checklist
RiskImpact
Immediate surrender clauseEarly tax trigger
Contradictory draftingLitigation risk
Weak cost evidenceHigher tax
Missing valuationComputation disputes
Incorrect Section 54F claimExemption denial
Early sale of flatWithdrawal risk

Model Protective Clause

“The Tenant shall continue to hold tenancy rights until simultaneous delivery of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation and receipt of vacant possession of the Existing Premises.”

This is critical for timing protection.

Compliance Checklist
AreaAction
Legal classificationVerify tenancy nature
Tax timingDetermine transfer point
Cost documentationPreserve evidence
ValuationObtain FMV report
Exemption eligibilityEvaluate Section 54F
Receipt classificationSeparate heads
Exit planningFuture sale impact

Final Professional Takeaway

Taxation of tenancy rights in redevelopment is governed by five interdependent elements:

ElementImportance
Nature of rightAsset classification
Timing of extinguishmentYear of tax
Nature of considerationComputation base
ValuationQuantification accuracy
Exemption eligibilityTax optimisation

Core Principle

Redevelopment taxation is not driven by execution dates or nomenclature, but by legal extinguishment of tenancy rights supported by contractual terms, possession evidence and valuation discipline.

Where documentation is consistent, taxation is stable.

Where documentation is inconsistent, litigation becomes inevitable.

In redevelopment taxation, drafting is not documentation—it is tax determination itself.

Monday, May 4, 2026

Section 119 Condonation of Delay: Refunds, Loss Claims and NRI Tax Relief after Eksons (2026)

 By CA Surekha Ahuja

Section 119(2)(b), “Genuine Hardship”, Delayed Income-tax Return Relief, NRI Refund Claims and Procedural Preservation of Tax Rights

Tax controversy in India frequently turns not on the allowability of a claim, but on the timeliness of its assertion. A refund may be legally due, A loss may be legally determinable, A deduction may be legally admissible.

A treaty claim may be legally available. Yet each of these may become procedurally unenforceable if the statutory mechanism for claiming them is not exercised within the prescribed time.

This is the precise legislative context in which Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 assumes significance. Section 119(2)(b) operates as a statutory remedial jurisdiction enabling condonation of delay where procedural limitation threatens substantive tax entitlement and where refusal to admit the claim would result in genuine hardship.

In practical terms, it is the principal statutory mechanism for condonation of delay in income-tax refund claims, delayed return-based loss claims, delayed deduction claims and delayed treaty-based tax relief claims.

Its significance has now been materially strengthened by the Bombay High Court in Eksons (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (17.03.2026), where internal management disputes and corporate governance deadlock were recognised as constituting genuine hardship for the purpose of Section 119 condonation.

The judgment marks an important shift. It expands the law of condonation from personal hardship jurisprudence to institutional incapacity jurisprudence.

This article examines the legal scope of Section 119 condonation of delay, the evolving judicial position, NRI tax refund implications, practical application strategy and the corresponding legislative transition under Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Section 119(2)(b): Statutory Jurisdiction for Condonation of Delay in Refund Claims, Loss Claims and Delayed Tax Relief Applications

Section 119 vests the Central Board of Direct Taxes with administrative supervisory powers for proper implementation of the Act.

However, its practical significance lies in sub-section (2), particularly clause (b).

Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Board to authorise admission of an application or claim after expiry of the prescribed statutory period where such delayed admission is justified by genuine hardship.

This jurisdiction is exceptional, but not discretionary in an arbitrary sense.

It is a statutory corrective mechanism intended to prevent procedural limitation from producing substantive tax injustice.

The provision becomes relevant where:

  • the underlying tax claim is otherwise valid in law;
  • the statutory limitation period has expired; and
  • the taxpayer establishes genuine hardship causing the delay.

This framework is central to delayed income-tax refund condonation and delayed return relief.

Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025: Legislative Continuity of Section 119 Relief Framework

Under the new Income-tax Act, 2025, the administrative and procedural relief framework earlier structured under Section 119 has been legislatively reorganised under Section 239.

The statutory architecture has changed. The remedial philosophy remains intact.

Comparative legal position

ParticularsIncome-tax Act, 1961Income-tax Act, 2025
Administrative jurisdiction of CBDTSection 119Section 239
Condonation of delay jurisdictionSection 119(2)(b)Corresponding relief framework under Section 239

This legislative shift is important for tax practitioners.

Condonation applications must be aligned to the governing statute based on the relevant tax period.

Incorrect statutory mapping weakens professional drafting.

Scope of Section 119 Condonation of Delay: Not Restricted to Income-tax Refund Claims

One of the most frequent professional misconceptions is to restrict Section 119 condonation only to refund claims. That understanding is incomplete.

The scope of Section 119(2)(b) extends to any substantive tax relief which fails procedurally on account of limitation. This includes:

Type of tax claimWhether condonation may apply
Income-tax refund claimsYes
Carry-forward of business lossYes
Carry-forward of capital lossYes
Delayed deduction claimsYes
Delayed exemption claimsYes
DTAA relief claimsYes
Foreign tax credit claimsYes

The legal test is not the category of claim. The legal test is whether substantive entitlement survives and procedural delay alone obstructs its assertion. That distinction is foundational.

Meaning of “Genuine Hardship” under Section 119(2)(b): Legal Threshold and Practical Interpretation

The expression “genuine hardship” is the jurisdictional foundation of Section 119 condonation.

The Act does not define it.

Its content therefore emerges through judicial interpretation. The phrase must be understood strictly, but reasonably.

Hardship does not mean inconvenience. Hardship does not mean omission through indifference.

Hardship does not mean routine negligence. It refers to a real, bona fide and factually demonstrable inability to comply within time.

Professionally, the test may be structured as follows:

Legal testProfessional relevance
Was there a valid tax claim?Foundational requirement
Was the claim time-barred?Jurisdictional trigger
Was there genuine hardship?Relief basis
Was taxpayer conduct bona fide?Credibility factor
Did hardship cause delay?Decisive factor

The fifth factor—causal nexus—is the most important.

Bombay High Court in Eksons (P.) Ltd.: Expansion of Section 119 Jurisprudence

The Bombay High Court ruling in Eksons (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax materially strengthens Section 119 condonation jurisprudence.

The factual matrix was commercially significant. Internal disputes among directors resulted in governance paralysis.

Financial statements could not be finalised, Board approvals were stalled, Audit closure became impossible, the dispute had escalated before the National Company Law Tribunal.

The inability to complete statutory return filing was therefore directly linked to institutional incapacity.

The department rejected condonation, The High Court reversed the departmental view.

It directed reopening of the filing portal and permitted return filing under Section 139(4).

Legal ratio emerging from Eksons

The judgment establishes three important principles:

Institutional incapacity constitutes genuine hardship

Hardship is not restricted to personal disability.

Corporate governance paralysis may equally qualify.

Past compliance conduct affects condonation credibility

A taxpayer with established compliance history is better placed to establish bona fide conduct.

Procedural law cannot mechanically defeat substantive rights

Where the delay is supported by genuine factual impossibility, procedural limitation must yield to substantive justice.

This is the most important practical takeaway from Eksons.

Causal Nexus under Section 119: The Decisive Test in Condonation of Delay

Section 119 relief does not operate merely because hardship exists.

It operates where hardship caused delay. That distinction is critical. A board dispute, by itself, is not enough.

A board dispute preventing financial finalisation, delaying audit closure and disabling statutory filing creates the legal causation required for condonation. This causal nexus must be clearly documented.

Professionally, weak condonation applications usually fail on causation. Not on hardship.

Section 119 for NRI Income-tax Refund Claims: Why Delayed Return Relief Becomes Critical

Section 119 condonation assumes greater significance for NRIs because of source-based tax deduction structures.

In many NRI cases, tax is deducted at domestic rates.

However, final tax liability may be lower under the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

This creates excess withholding.

That excess becomes refundable only through return filing.

If return filing is delayed, the refund claim becomes procedurally vulnerable.

Section 119 therefore becomes the principal remedy.

Common NRI scenarios include:

Income sourcePractical tax issue
Bank depositsExcess TDS
Rental incomeHigher withholding than actual tax liability
Investment incomeTreaty rates ignored
Capital gainsIncorrect withholding computation

For NRIs, Section 119 condonation often directly determines tax refund recovery.

NRI Tax Refund Strategy: Professional Compliance Protocol

Tax refund delays for NRIs are frequently procedural.

A structured compliance protocol reduces litigation.

Tax credit reconciliation

Before filing, reconcile:

  • Form 26AS
  • AIS
  • TIS

Mismatch remains a primary cause of CPC delay.

DTAA documentation

Maintain:

DocumentImportance
Tax Residency CertificateMandatory
Form 10FProcedural support
Treaty position disclosureLegal basis

Incomplete documentation weakens refund claims.

Bank validation & E - Verification

Refund release depends on pre-validated bank details.

This is an operational requirement.

A filed but unverified return remains incomplete.This is one of the most frequent refund-processing failures.

Section 119 Condonation vs Updated Return under Section 139(8A): Strategic Distinction

Section 119 and updated return operate differently.

Professionals must not confuse them.

BasisSection 119Updated Return
NatureRemedial jurisdictionCorrective jurisdiction
ObjectivePreserve substantive rightCorrect omitted disclosure
Refund claimPermissibleRestricted
Additional tax costGenerally absentApplicable
Genuine hardship requiredYesNo

Where the issue concerns delayed assertion of an existing tax right, Section 119 is generally the proper route.

Where omitted income is being corrected, updated return applies.

This distinction materially affects tax cost.

Documentation Checklist for Section 119 Condonation of Delay

The following should ordinarily be maintained:

  • computation of income
  • Form 26AS
  • AIS/TIS reconciliation
  • financial statements
  • board resolutions or minutes
  • auditor communications
  • NCLT documents (where relevant)
  • medical documents (where relevant)
  • affidavit in support

In condonation litigation, documentation is the strongest legal asset.

Conclusion: Section 119 Is the Statutory Defence against Procedural Forfeiture of Tax Rights

Section 119(2)(b) remains one of the most important procedural relief provisions under Indian tax law.

Its successor framework under Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves that legislative intent.

Its role is not to dilute procedural discipline.

Its role is to prevent procedural limitation from destroying substantive tax rights where delay is attributable to genuine hardship.

The Bombay High Court in Eksons (P.) Ltd. has materially expanded this jurisprudence by recognising institutional incapacity as a valid ground for condonation.

That principle has important implications for corporate taxpayers, NRI tax refund claims and professional advisory strategy.

Tax professionals advising on delayed income-tax refund claims, delayed return loss claims or delayed treaty relief claims should examine Section 119 condonation before concluding statutory forfeiture.

Because in tax practice, procedural limitation does not always terminate substantive entitlement.

In appropriate cases, Section 119 preserves it.