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

      Assessing the Continuity and Reform of Infrastructure Tax Incentives under the Evolving Income Tax Framework : Clause 138 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80-IA of Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 138 Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 138 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a transitional provision intended to bridge the gap between the erstwhile Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 80-IA, and the new legislative framework set to come into force from April 1, 2026. Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has historically been a cornerstone for incentivizing investment in infrastructure and other specified sectors through substantial tax deductions. The present commentary undertakes a detailed analysis of Clause 138, juxtaposed with the intricate and comprehensive regime established u/s 80-IA. The analysis will address the legislative context, objectives, structural and substantive provisions, interpretative issues, and practical and comparative implications.

      Objective and Purpose

      Legislative Intent of Clause 138

      Clause 138 is crafted as a savings and transitional provision. Its core objective is to ensure continuity of deduction benefits for undertakings or enterprises that qualified u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during the period of transition to the new tax code. The clause is significant because it prevents the abrupt cessation of tax benefits for ongoing eligible businesses, thereby protecting legitimate expectations and investments made under the previous regime.

      Policy Considerations of Section 80-IA

      Section 80-IA was introduced with the express purpose of promoting industrialization, infrastructure development, and economic growth by offering substantial tax incentives. Over the years, it has covered a wide array of activities including the development, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure facilities, telecommunication services, industrial parks, power generation and distribution, and more. The provision was periodically amended to respond to evolving economic priorities and to address interpretative challenges that arose in its practical application.

      Detailed Analysis

      I. Structure and Substance of Clause 138

      Clause 138 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is succinct but layered in its operation. It provides that, for any tax year commencing on or after April 1, 2026:

      • If the gross total income of an assessee includes profits and gains derived by an undertaking or enterprise from any business referred to in Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and
      • If the assessee would have been eligible to claim a deduction u/s 80-IA, had the Income Tax Act, 1961 not been repealed,

      Then, a deduction shall be allowed in computing the total income, subject to:

      1. The deduction amount being calculated as per the provisions of Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and
      2. The deduction being available only for such tax years as would have been allowed u/s 80-IA, as if the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not been repealed.

      This structure is essentially a 'grandfathering' mechanism, preserving the rights of eligible assessees during the transition to the new tax regime.

      II. Structure and Substance of Section 80-IA

      Section 80-IA is a detailed and multi-layered provision, comprising several sub-sections and explanations. The principal features include:

      • Eligible Businesses: Covers businesses engaged in infrastructure facility development, telecommunication services, industrial parks, power generation and distribution, among others.
      • Quantum and Period of Deduction: Generally allows 100% deduction of profits and gains for 10 consecutive years out of a specified block, with variations for certain sectors (e.g., telecommunication, scientific research, etc.).
      • Eligibility Conditions: Specifies that the undertaking must not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business, nor by transfer of previously used machinery or plant, with detailed exceptions and explanations.
      • Computation of Profits: Profits of the eligible business are computed as if it were the only source of income.
      • Anti-abuse Provisions: Includes mechanisms to address transfer pricing, close connections, and arrangements leading to more than ordinary profits.
      • Audit Requirement: Mandates audit and furnishing of a report for claiming deductions.
      • Exclusion and Limitation: Ensures that double deduction is not allowed under other provisions for the same profits.
      • Central Government's Power: Empowers the government to notify exclusions for certain classes of undertakings.
      • Transfer Provisions: Deals with amalgamation, demerger, and transfer of undertakings, specifying continuity of benefits and exceptions.

      III. Item-wise Comparative Analysis

      1. Scope of Eligible Businesses

      Section 80-IA: Provides an exhaustive list of eligible businesses, including infrastructure facilities (roads, bridges, ports, airports, water supply, etc.), telecommunication services, industrial parks, SEZs, power generation/distribution, and more. Each category has specific conditions regarding timeframes, modes of operation, and ownership.
      Clause 138: Refers back to the businesses covered u/s 80-IA, thereby incorporating by reference the entire scope of eligibility as it stood under the repealed Act.
      Analysis: Clause 138 does not expand or contract the list of eligible businesses; it merely ensures continuity for those that were already eligible. However, it raises interpretative issues regarding whether subsequent amendments or judicial interpretations of Section 80-IA will apply to Clause 138, or whether only the law as it stood at the time of repeal is relevant.

      2. Quantum and Period of Deduction

      Section 80-IA: Generally provides for a 100% deduction of profits for ten consecutive assessment years out of a block of fifteen (or twenty for certain infrastructure facilities). For telecommunication, there is a split regime (100% for five years, 30% for the next five).
      Clause 138: States that the deduction amount is to be calculated as per Section 80-IA, and the deduction is available only for such tax years as would have been allowed u/s 80-IA, as if the Act were not repealed.
      Analysis: The period and quantum of deduction are preserved on a pro rata basis for undertakings in the midst of their deduction period as of the commencement of the new Act. There is no extension or curtailment, and the "sunset" provisions of Section 80-IA continue to apply. Any business whose deduction period has expired under the old Act gets no benefit under Clause 138.

      3. Eligibility Conditions and Compliance

      Section 80-IA: Contains detailed eligibility criteria, such as:

      • Not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
      • Not formed by transfer of used machinery/plant, with a 20% threshold for used assets.
      • Entry into agreements with government/statutory bodies for infrastructure projects.
      • Audit of accounts and submission of audit report.

      Clause 138: Is silent on these specifics but incorporates them by reference, since the deduction is to be computed "as per the provisions of Section 80-IA." Thus, all eligibility and compliance requirements remain in force.
      Analysis: Clause 138 does not dilute or relax any compliance requirement. It is essential for claimants to continue to meet all conditions, including documentation and audit, as non-compliance would render the deduction inadmissible.

      4. Computation of Profits and Anti-abuse Provisions

      Section 80-IA: Mandates that profits for eligible business are to be computed as if such business were the only source of income. It also addresses transfer pricing for goods/services between eligible and other businesses of the assessee, and empowers the Assessing Officer to recompute profits in cases of excessive profits due to close connections or arrangements.
      Clause 138: By requiring computation as per Section 80-IA, all these computational and anti-abuse provisions are carried forward.
      Analysis: The anti-abuse framework remains intact. This is crucial to prevent artificial inflation of eligible profits and to ensure that only genuine business profits are incentivized.

      5. Exclusion of Double Deduction

      Section 80-IA: Explicitly bars double deduction under any other provision for the same profits and gains.
      Clause 138: By incorporating Section 80-IA's regime, this limitation continues to apply.
      Analysis: There is no scope for "stacking" deductions under Clause 138 and other provisions for the same profit stream.

      6. Government's Power to Exclude

      Section 80-IA: Empowers the Central Government to notify, by Official Gazette, that the exemption shall not apply to any class of undertakings with effect from a specified date.
      Clause 138: Silent on this aspect, but since the deduction is to be computed "as per Section 80-IA," it can be argued that any exclusion notification in force at the time of repeal would continue to apply.
      Analysis: New exclusions cannot be issued under the old Act post-repeal, but existing exclusions remain operative for the purposes of Clause 138.

      7. Transfer, Amalgamation, and Demerger

      Section 80-IA: Contains detailed provisions for cases where the eligible undertaking is transferred in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger, specifying who is entitled to the deduction and for what period.
      Clause 138: Does not mention these situations specifically, but by incorporating Section 80-IA, the same treatment applies.
      Analysis: The benefit can continue to the amalgamated/resulting company, provided all conditions are met, and the deduction period is not extended beyond what would have been available to the original undertaking.

      8. Special Economic Zones and Works Contracts

      Section 80-IA: Contains explicit carve-outs, such as exclusion of SEZs notified on or after April 1, 2005, and businesses in the nature of works contracts.
      Clause 138: By reference, these exclusions persist.
      Analysis: Businesses in these categories cannot claim the deduction under Clause 138 if they were ineligible u/s 80-IA.

      9. Audit and Reporting Requirements

      Section 80-IA: Mandates audit of accounts and furnishing of an audit report in the prescribed form and by the specified date.
      Clause 138: Silent, but as deduction is to be computed as per Section 80-IA, this requirement continues.
      Analysis: Ongoing compliance with audit and reporting is essential for continued benefit under Clause 138.

      10. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      Several interpretative challenges may arise:

      • Whether subsequent judicial pronouncements interpreting Section 80-IA apply to Clause 138 claims, or only those existing at the date of repeal.
      • Whether procedural requirements (such as audit report formats or deadlines) that change under the new Act can be imposed on Clause 138 claimants.
      • How to address situations where a business activity has become ineligible u/s 80-IA due to subsequent legislative amendments prior to repeal.

      IV. Practical Implications

      For Businesses and Investors

      Clause 138 provides certainty and continuity for businesses that have made long-term investments on the basis of Section 80-IA. It ensures that the repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not result in the premature withdrawal of promised tax incentives, thereby honoring the principle of legitimate expectation and fostering investor confidence.

      For Tax Administrators

      Tax authorities must continue to apply the detailed and sometimes complex eligibility, computation, and compliance requirements of Section 80-IA, even though the rest of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is repealed. This may present administrative challenges, particularly in interpreting "as if the said Act had not been repealed" for procedural aspects.

      For Policy and Law

      Clause 138 exemplifies good legislative practice in providing for transitional relief. However, it also highlights the complexities of managing legacy provisions during statutory overhaul, especially where long-term tax incentives are involved.

      V. Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

      Many jurisdictions provide for "grandfathering" of tax incentives when shifting to new tax codes. The Indian approach in Clause 138 is consistent with international best practices, ensuring that incentives are not withdrawn retrospectively. However, the Indian model is unique in its method of incorporating by reference the entire substantive and procedural regime of the repealed provision, rather than restating or modifying it in the new law.

      Conclusion

      Clause 138 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, operates as a savings provision, carrying forward the deduction regime established u/s 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for ongoing eligible businesses. It preserves both the substantive and procedural framework of Section 80-IA, thereby ensuring continuity, certainty, and fairness for affected stakeholders. The clause does not confer any new benefit or extend the deduction period; it simply allows those already entitled to complete their deduction period as originally envisaged. While the approach is sound from a legal and policy perspective, practical challenges may arise in interpretation and administration, particularly as memories of the repealed Act fade over time. Ongoing judicial and administrative guidance may be required to address ambiguities and ensure that the objectives of the provision are fulfilled without abuse or undue hardship.


      Full Text:

      Clause 138 Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax