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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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