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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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