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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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