Comparison of Section 78 "Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e source). Document 2 is Clause 78 from the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both affect taxpayers transferring immovable property and the tax department in valuation/enforcement contexts. Effective date or enactment/decision date: Not stated in the document. Background & Scope Statutory hooks: both texts operate "for the purposes of section 72" (section on capital gains) and reference valuation procedures involving a Valuation Officer with application, mutatis mutandis, of provisions in section/sections 269(3) to (8). The provision targets transfers where consideration received/accruing is less than the stamp duty value (or "assessable" value in the Bill). The texts address when stamp duty value is to be taken as the full value of co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty value has not been contested in appeal/revision or before any other authority or court; if the Valuation Officer's value exceeds stamp duty value the stamp duty value shall be taken as full consideration. Interpretation Legislative intent indicated by the text: The provision is designed to curb undervaluation of immovable property consideration for capital gains purposes by deeming the stamp duty value as the taxable consideration where consideration declared is lower than the stamp duty value. The inclusion of a specified payments condition for taking date-of-agreement stamp duty value indicates intent to prevent cash/undeclared pre-agreement payments from defeating valuation rules. The 110% tolerance provision shows a legislat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taken as full value (subject to definition/application of payment modes in the particular text). Interplay Both texts expressly invoke section 72 and the valuation procedure akin to section 269(3)-(8) (Bill uses "sections"; Act uses "section"). Document 2 also introduces and defines "assessable" (the value an authority would adopt for stamp duty) which ties stamp duty assessments to the deeming provision. Document 1 omits that definition and consistently uses "stamp duty value". No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited in either document. Any broader interplay with state stamp laws or other central provisions is Not stated in the document. What Changed - Differences Between the Two Texts Topic Clause 78 of the Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e checking. Document: section 66(32) content is Not stated in the document. * Removal of "assessable" definition: The Bill's express definitional sub-section clarifying "assessable" is omitted in the Act. Practical impact: ambiguity may arise about whether "stamp duty value" in the Act should be read as the same "assessable" concept in the Bill (i.e., the value a stamp authority would adopt). The Act's silence means reliance on ordinary meaning of "stamp duty value" or other statutory definitions; users must look elsewhere in statute or state stamp laws. Document: any residual legislative intent or how to treat missing definition is Not stated in the document. * Valuation route unchanged substantively: Both texts permit AO refer....