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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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