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

      Capital gain Exemption through Investment in the Certain Bonds in Clause 85 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 54EC of Income Tax Act, 1961

      27 March, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a provision concerning the non-charging of capital gains tax on investments in certain bonds. This clause is significant as it provides a tax-saving avenue for taxpayers who realize capital gains from the transfer of long-term assets such as land or buildings. The clause aims to encourage investments in specified financial instruments by offering tax exemptions, thereby promoting economic growth and financial stability. The legislative context of this provision is rooted in the broader framework of capital gains taxation, which seeks to balance revenue generation with incentivizing productive investments.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 85 is to provide tax relief to taxpayers who reinvest capital gains from the sale of long-term assets into specified bonds. This provision aligns with the policy considerations of encouraging long-term investments and channeling funds into sectors deemed beneficial for economic development. Historically, similar provisions have been used to stimulate investments in infrastructure and other critical areas by offering tax incentives, thereby serving dual purposes of tax relief and economic stimulus.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Conditions for Non-Chargeability of Capital Gains

      This sub-section outlines the conditions under which capital gains will not be charged. It specifies that if an assessee invests the entire or part of the capital gains from the transfer of land or building into a long-term specified asset within six months, the capital gains will either be partially or fully exempt from tax. The clause distinguishes between situations where the investment is less than or equal to the capital gains, affecting the taxable amount accordingly.

      2. Investment Threshold Limits

      This provision imposes a cap on the investment amount that can be exempted, limiting it to fifty lakh rupees during any tax year. This cap ensures that the tax benefit is targeted and does not lead to excessive revenue loss for the government. The limitation also applies cumulatively for the year of transfer and the subsequent tax year, thereby providing a clear framework for compliance.

      3. Transfer or Conversion of New Asset

      This clause deals with the scenario where the new asset is transferred or converted into money within five years of acquisition. In such cases, the previously exempted capital gains will be deemed taxable in the year of conversion, thus ensuring that the tax benefit is contingent on the retention of the investment for a specified period.

      4. Loans or Advances Against New Asset

      It states that any loan or advance taken on the security of the new asset will be treated as a transfer, triggering tax liability. This provision prevents the circumvention of the retention requirement by using the asset as collateral for loans.

      5. Deduction Restrictions

      This section clarifies that investments considered for exemption under this clause cannot claim deductions under another section, preventing double benefits.

      6. Definition of "New Asset

      The clause defines a "new asset" as a bond redeemable after five years and notified by the Central Government. This definition ensures that the tax benefit is aligned with investments that have a long-term horizon, contributing to economic stability.

      Practical Implications

      Clause 85 has significant implications for various stakeholders. For taxpayers, it provides a strategic option for deferring tax liability while contributing to economic development through specified investments. Businesses dealing in real estate and infrastructure may benefit from increased investment inflows. From a regulatory perspective, the provision necessitates clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance and prevent misuse.

      Comparative Analysis

      Comparing Clause 85 with similar provisions in other jurisdictions reveals both commonalities and unique features. Many countries offer tax incentives for reinvestment of capital gains, though the specifics, such as the types of eligible investments and retention periods, vary. The five-year retention requirement in Clause 85 is relatively stringent compared to some jurisdictions, reflecting a cautious approach to ensuring long-term economic benefits.

      Conclusion

      Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, provides a well-structured mechanism for capital gains tax exemption through investments in specified bonds. It balances the need for tax incentives with safeguards against revenue loss and misuse. Future developments may include judicial clarifications on ambiguities and potential reforms to adapt to evolving economic conditions.

      Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Introduction

      Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a statutory provision that offers a tax exemption on capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets, provided the gains are reinvested in specified bonds. This section plays a crucial role in the taxation framework by encouraging the reinvestment of capital gains into productive sectors, thus aligning individual tax planning with national economic objectives. The provision has undergone several amendments, reflecting the evolving policy priorities and economic conditions.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Section 54EC is to incentivize taxpayers to reinvest capital gains into long-term specified assets, thereby promoting infrastructure development and other critical sectors. By offering a tax exemption, the provision seeks to channel financial resources into areas that can drive economic growth and development. The historical context of this section highlights its role in supporting government initiatives in infrastructure and rural electrification.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Conditions for Exemption

      Sub-section (1) sets the conditions under which capital gains from the transfer of long-term assets, such as land or buildings, are exempt from tax if reinvested in specified bonds within six months. The provision delineates scenarios based on the proportion of reinvestment relative to the capital gains, with varying tax implications. This sub-section is critical as it establishes the criteria for availing the tax benefit, requiring precise compliance by taxpayers.

      2. Provisions for Investment Limits

      The section imposes a cap of fifty lakh rupees on the reinvestment amount in specified bonds, applicable per financial year. This limit ensures equitable access to tax benefits, preventing excessive advantage by high-net-worth individuals. However, it may also restrict the provision's appeal for larger investors, potentially impacting the volume of funds directed towards government projects.

      3. Transfer or Conversion of Bonds

      Sub-section (2) addresses the scenario where the specified bonds are transferred or converted into money within three years, deeming the initially exempted capital gains as income in the year of conversion. This clause ensures that the investment serves its intended long-term purpose, deterring short-term holding for tax avoidance.

      Explanation: Loans Against Bonds

      The explanation section deems any loan or advance taken against the specified bonds as a conversion into money, effectively nullifying the tax benefit.

      This anti-abuse measure prevents taxpayers from circumventing the lock-in period by monetizing the bonds through loans.

      4. Restrictions on Deductions

      This sub-section prohibits deductions u/s 80C for investments in specified bonds already considered u/s 54EC. This prevents double-dipping, ensuring that taxpayers do not claim multiple tax benefits for the same investment.

      5. Definition of "Long-term Specified Asset"

      The definition of "long-term specified asset" includes bonds notified by the Central Government, redeemable after a specified period. This ensures that the eligible bonds are of a long-term nature, aligning with the provision's policy objective of fostering sustainable investments.

      Practical Implications

      Section 54EC has significant implications for taxpayers, offering a strategic avenue for tax planning and deferral of capital gains tax liability. It also impacts sectors like infrastructure and rural electrification, potentially increasing investment inflows. Regulatory bodies must ensure clear guidelines and monitoring to prevent misuse and ensure compliance.

      Comparative Analysis

      Comparing Section 54EC with similar provisions in other jurisdictions reveals a common approach of using tax incentives to promote reinvestment of capital gains. However, the specifics, such as eligible investments and retention periods, vary, reflecting different policy priorities and economic contexts. The provision's focus on infrastructure and rural electrification aligns with national development goals, distinguishing it from more general investment incentives elsewhere.

      Conclusion

      Section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides a robust framework for capital gains tax exemption through investments in specified bonds. It effectively balances tax incentives with safeguards against revenue loss and misuse. Future developments may include judicial clarifications on ambiguities and potential reforms to adapt to changing economic conditions.

       


      Full Text:

      Clause 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax