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 LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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 LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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