Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Treatment of capital gains arising on compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings in Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 54D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      27 March, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 84 Capital gains on compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings not to be charged in certain cases.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 addresses the treatment of capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings. This provision aims to provide relief to taxpayers who reinvest their compensation in similar assets, particularly in the context of industrial undertakings. The clause mirrors the objectives of Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but introduces certain modifications to adapt to contemporary economic and tax environments. Understanding the nuances of Clause 84 is crucial for stakeholders, including businesses and tax practitioners, as it impacts capital gains tax liability and investment strategies.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 84 is to offer tax relief to taxpayers who face compulsory acquisition of their lands or buildings. This relief is contingent upon the reinvestment of the compensation received into similar assets, thereby facilitating the continuity of industrial operations. The legislative intent is to encourage the reinvestment of capital gains in productive assets, supporting economic growth and industrial development. By deferring capital gains tax liability, the provision aims to mitigate the financial impact of compulsory acquisitions on businesses and promote the re-establishment or expansion of industrial undertakings.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Conditions for Relief

      Clause 84(1) outlines the conditions under which capital gains from compulsory acquisition are not charged to income tax. The provision applies when an assessee's capital asset, forming part of an industrial undertaking, is compulsorily acquired, and the assessee reinvests the compensation in another land or building within three years. The reinvestment must be for shifting, re-establishing, or setting up another industrial undertaking. This sub-section aligns with Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the language and structure have been modernized for clarity.

      2. Treatment of Capital Gains

      The tax treatment based on the relationship between capital gains and the cost of the new asset. If capital gains exceed the cost of the new asset, the excess is charged u/s 67, and the cost of the new asset for future capital gains computation is set to nil. Conversely, if capital gains are equal to or less than the cost, no capital gains are charged, and the cost is reduced by the amount of the capital gains for future computations. This mirrors the mechanism in Section 54D but updates references to sections relevant under the new Bill.

      3. Utilization and Deposit of Capital Gains

      Clause 84(2) addresses situations where capital gains are not immediately reinvested. It mandates the deposit of unutilized capital gains in a specified bank or institution by the due date for filing the return of income. This deposit must be utilized according to a scheme notified by the Central Government. This provision ensures that the tax deferral is contingent on the genuine intent to reinvest the capital gains, preventing misuse of the relief. The requirement for proof of deposit aligns with compliance and transparency objectives.

      4. Deemed Cost of New Asset

      Sub-section (3) clarifies that the cost of the new asset includes both the amount already utilized for its purchase or construction and the deposited amount under sub-section (2). This provision ensures that taxpayers benefit from the relief even if the reinvestment is staggered over time. The inclusion of deposited amounts in the cost basis aligns with the policy of encouraging reinvestment within a specified period.

      5. Consequences of Non-utilization

      Clause 84(4) outlines the consequences if the deposited amount is not fully utilized within the specified period. Unutilized amounts are charged u/s 67 as income of the tax year in which three years from the transfer date expires. Additionally, the assessee may withdraw the unused amount according to the notified scheme. This provision underscores the conditional nature of the relief, ensuring that tax deferral is only granted for genuine reinvestment efforts.

      Practical Implications

      Clause 84 has significant implications for businesses and individuals facing compulsory acquisition of industrial assets. The provision offers a mechanism to defer capital gains tax liability, thereby preserving capital for reinvestment. However, compliance with the conditions and timelines is crucial to benefit from the relief. Taxpayers must carefully plan their reinvestment strategies and maintain adequate documentation to substantiate their claims. Additionally, the requirement to deposit unutilized gains introduces procedural obligations that necessitate timely action and adherence to notified schemes.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, share similar objectives and mechanisms for deferring capital gains tax liability. Both provisions aim to facilitate the reinvestment of compensation from compulsory acquisitions into similar assets, promoting industrial continuity. However, Clause 84 introduces updated references and language to align with the new legislative framework. Additionally, the Bill's emphasis on compliance and transparency reflects contemporary tax policy priorities. While the core principles remain consistent, the procedural updates in Clause 84 enhance clarity and adaptability to current economic conditions.

      Conclusion

      Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation of the policy objectives embodied in Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By providing tax relief for reinvestment of capital gains from compulsory acquisitions, the provision supports industrial growth and economic resilience. However, the effectiveness of this relief depends on taxpayers' adherence to the specified conditions and timelines. As the Bill progresses through the legislative process, stakeholders should monitor developments and prepare for potential compliance requirements. Future reforms may further refine the provision to address emerging challenges and opportunities in the tax landscape.

      Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Introduction

      Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides a tax exemption for capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings used for industrial purposes. This statutory provision is designed to facilitate the reinvestment of compensation into similar assets, thereby supporting the continuity and growth of industrial undertakings. Understanding the intricacies of Section 54D is essential for taxpayers navigating compulsory acquisition scenarios and seeking to optimize their tax liabilities.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Section 54D is to offer relief to taxpayers affected by compulsory acquisitions, enabling them to reinvest their compensation in similar assets without immediate tax liability. The provision aims to mitigate the financial impact of such acquisitions on businesses, encouraging the re-establishment or expansion of industrial operations. By deferring capital gains tax, Section 54D supports economic stability and industrial development, aligning with broader policy objectives of fostering growth and investment.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Conditions for Exemption

      Section 54D(1) sets forth the conditions under which capital gains from compulsory acquisition are exempt from tax. The provision applies when an assessee's capital asset, forming part of an industrial undertaking, is compulsorily acquired, and the assessee reinvests the compensation in another land or building within three years. The reinvestment must be for shifting, re-establishing, or setting up another industrial undertaking. This sub-section establishes the foundational criteria for claiming the exemption, emphasizing the continuity of industrial operations as a key consideration.

      2. Treatment of Capital Gains

      The tax treatment based on the relationship between capital gains and the cost of the new asset. If capital gains exceed the cost of the new asset, the excess is charged u/s 45, and the cost of the new asset for future capital gains computation is set to nil. Conversely, if capital gains are equal to or less than the cost, no capital gains are charged, and the cost is reduced by the amount of the capital gains for future computations. This mechanism incentivizes complete reinvestment of capital gains while ensuring that tax liability is proportionate to the extent of reinvestment.

      3. Utilization and Deposit of Capital Gains

      Section 54D(2) addresses situations where capital gains are not immediately reinvested. It mandates the deposit of unutilized capital gains in a specified bank or institution by the due date for filing the return of income. This deposit must be utilized according to a scheme notified by the Central Government. The provision ensures that the tax deferral is contingent on the genuine intent to reinvest the capital gains, preventing misuse of the exemption. The requirement for proof of deposit aligns with compliance and transparency objectives.

      4. Consequences of Non-utilization

      The provision includes a mechanism for dealing with unutilized deposited amounts. If the amount is not fully utilized within the specified period, it is charged u/s 45 as income of the previous year in which three years from the transfer date expires. Additionally, the assessee may withdraw the unused amount according to the notified scheme. This aspect underscores the conditional nature of the exemption, ensuring that tax relief is only granted for genuine reinvestment efforts.

      Practical Implications

      Section 54D has significant implications for businesses and individuals facing compulsory acquisition of industrial assets. The provision offers a mechanism to defer capital gains tax liability, thereby preserving capital for reinvestment. However, compliance with the conditions and timelines is crucial to benefit from the exemption. Taxpayers must carefully plan their reinvestment strategies and maintain adequate documentation to substantiate their claims. Additionally, the requirement to deposit unutilized gains introduces procedural obligations that necessitate timely action and adherence to notified schemes.

      Comparative Analysis with Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Clause 84 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, share similar objectives and mechanisms for deferring capital gains tax liability. Both provisions aim to facilitate the reinvestment of compensation from compulsory acquisitions into similar assets, promoting industrial continuity. However, Clause 84 introduces updated references and language to align with the new legislative framework. Additionally, the Bill's emphasis on compliance and transparency reflects contemporary tax policy priorities. While the core principles remain consistent, the procedural updates in Clause 84 enhance clarity and adaptability to current economic conditions.

      Conclusion

      Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides a valuable tax exemption for capital gains arising from compulsory acquisitions, supporting industrial growth and economic resilience. However, the effectiveness of this relief depends on taxpayers' adherence to the specified conditions and timelines. As tax laws evolve, stakeholders should monitor developments and prepare for potential compliance requirements. Future reforms may further refine the provision to address emerging challenges and opportunities in the tax landscape.

       


      Full Text:

      Clause 84 Capital gains on compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings not to be charged in certain cases.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax