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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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

      Protecting SEZ Developers' Tax Incentives : Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 139 Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in development of Special Economic Zone.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to provide deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in the development of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). This provision is designed to ensure continuity of tax incentives previously available u/s 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stood repealed with the introduction of the new tax code. The clause essentially acts as a transitional mechanism, preserving the rights of eligible developers to claim deductions that would have been available to them had section 80IAB remained in force. Section 80IAB was a critical fiscal incentive for SEZ developers, aligning with India's economic policy to encourage infrastructure development and export-oriented growth. The section provided a 100% deduction of profits and gains derived from the business of developing SEZs for a period of ten consecutive years, subject to certain conditions and timelines. With the legislative shift towards a new tax regime, Clause 139 becomes significant in safeguarding the legitimate expectations and investments of SEZ developers who commenced their projects under the earlier framework. This commentary analyzes Clause 139 in detail, elucidates its objectives, dissects its operative mechanics, and compares it with the erstwhile section 80IAB. The analysis also explores practical implications, interpretative challenges, and policy considerations relevant to stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      Clause 139 is crafted with the primary objective of ensuring that developers who initiated SEZ projects under the incentive regime of section 80IAB are not unfairly prejudiced by the repeal of the old Act. The legislative intent is twofold:

      1. Transitional Protection: To provide a seamless transition for developers who invested in SEZs relying on the fiscal incentives promised by the state, thereby upholding the principle of legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness in state action.
      2. Continuity of Incentives: To allow eligible developers to continue availing deductions for the remaining eligible period, calculated as per the provisions of section 80IAB, as if the old Act had not been repealed.

      The policy rationale is rooted in the need to maintain investor confidence, prevent disruption of ongoing projects, and avoid retrospective denial of incentives that could have adverse economic and legal repercussions.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Structure and Scope of Clause 139

      Clause 139 is composed of several key elements:

      • Eligibility: The assessee must be a "Developer" whose gross total income includes profits and gains derived from the business of developing a SEZ, notified on or after April 1, 2005, under the SEZ Act, 2005.
      • Reference to Section 80IAB: The clause explicitly refers to section 80IAB, stipulating that the deduction is available only if the assessee would have been eligible under that section had the old Act not been repealed.
      • Quantum and Period of Deduction: The amount and period of deduction must be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 80IAB.
      • Conditionality: The deduction is allowed only for the tax years that would have been eligible u/s 80IAB, thereby preventing any extension or expansion of the benefit beyond what was previously permissible.

      2. Key Provisions and Their Interpretation

      1. Eligibility Criteria:
        • The clause is confined to "Developers" as defined under the SEZ Act, 2005, and applies only to SEZs notified on or after April 1, 2005. This mirrors the scope of section 80IAB and excludes any new SEZs notified after the cut-off date stipulated in the old law.
        • The business must be that of "developing" a SEZ, which has been interpreted in previous jurisprudence to include activities such as land acquisition, infrastructure development, and provision of facilities for units within the SEZ.
      2. Reference to Repealed Law:
        • The clause operates as a "legal fiction," deeming the relevant provisions of section 80IAB to continue for the limited purpose of calculating the deduction. This approach is consistent with established principles of transitional legislation, as seen in various Supreme Court rulings on savings and repeal clauses.
        • The eligibility is tested "as if the said Act had not been repealed," ensuring that only those who would have qualified under the old regime are covered.
      3. Calculation of Deduction:
        • The quantum of deduction is to be "calculated as per the provisions of section 80IAB," i.e., 100% of profits and gains derived from the eligible business for ten consecutive years, within a span of fifteen years from the date of notification of the SEZ.
        • This ensures that the computation mechanism, including all conditions and limitations u/s 80IAB (such as the option to choose any ten consecutive years and the application of sub-sections of section 80-IA), continues to apply.
      4. Temporal Limitation:
        • The deduction is available only for such tax years as would have been allowed u/s 80IAB, preventing any extension of the benefit due to the transition to the new Act.
        • This is particularly significant for developers who have already commenced availing the deduction and have unexpired years remaining within the original ten-year window.

      3. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Interpretation of "Developer": While the SEZ Act provides a definition, disputes may arise regarding the eligibility of entities involved in ancillary activities or those who have transferred development rights.
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: The clause's reference to section 80IAB incorporates by implication the cross-references to section 80-IA, including anti-abuse provisions, which may lead to interpretational challenges in the new regime.
      • Procedural Aspects: The mechanism for claiming deduction, documentation, and compliance requirements are not explicitly stated and may need to be clarified through subordinate legislation or CBDT circulars.
      • Sunset Clauses: The clause does not extend or revive the benefit for developers commencing SEZs after April 1, 2017, in line with the sunset provision introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 in section 80IAB.

      Practical Implications

      1. Impact on Developers

      Clause 139 provides significant relief to developers who have made substantial investments in SEZ infrastructure based on the promise of tax incentives. It ensures:

      • Certainty and predictability in fiscal planning for ongoing projects.
      • Protection against abrupt withdrawal of incentives, which could otherwise lead to stranded investments and potential litigation.
      • Continuity of cash flows for the remaining eligible period, aiding project viability and debt servicing.

      2. Impact on Tax Administration

      Tax authorities are required to apply the provisions of the repealed section 80IAB for eligible cases, necessitating:

      • Maintenance of dual compliance regimes for a transitional period.
      • Training and capacity building to interpret and administer the legacy provisions in the context of the new Act.
      • Potential increase in scrutiny and litigation over eligibility, computation, and procedural compliance.

      3. Impact on Policy and Investment Climate

      By honoring past commitments, the provision reinforces India's credibility as an investment destination, particularly for infrastructure and export-oriented sectors. It also signals a balanced approach to tax reform, accommodating legitimate expectations while transitioning to a modernized tax regime.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 139 vs. Section 80IAB

      1. Structural Parity

      Both Clause 139 and section 80IAB are structurally aligned in their core purpose: providing a 100% deduction of profits and gains derived from the business of developing SEZs, subject to specific eligibility and temporal conditions.

      2. Key Similarities

      • Eligible Assessee: Both apply to "Developers" as defined under the SEZ Act, 2005.
      • Nature of Income: Deduction is available only in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of developing an SEZ.
      • Quantum of Deduction: 100% of eligible profits for ten consecutive years within a fifteen-year window.
      • Temporal Limitation: Both provisions exclude SEZs where development commenced after April 1, 2017, pursuant to the sunset clause introduced by the Finance Act, 2016.
      • Cross-Reference to Section 80-IA: The machinery provisions for computation, anti-abuse, and procedural requirements are incorporated by reference to section 80-IA.

      3. Key Differences

      AspectSection 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Legal StatusSubstantive law in force until repealTransitional/savings provision referencing repealed law
      ScopeApplies to all eligible developers during its currencyApplies only to those eligible as of repeal, for unexpired period
      Temporal ApplicationOpen to new SEZs notified up to April 1, 2017Closed to new SEZs; operates only for ongoing eligible cases
      Procedural ClarityDetailed mechanism, including options for period selection, transfer of operation, etc.Relies entirely on provisions of section 80IAB; procedural aspects to be clarified
      Legislative IntentPromotion of SEZ development as ongoing policyProtection of vested rights; no new incentive policy

      4. Unique Features and Potential Conflicts

      • Transitional Nature: Clause 139 is not a standalone incentive but a savings provision. It does not create new rights but preserves existing ones, preventing retrospective deprivation.
      • Potential Conflicts: Ambiguities may arise in the interpretation of procedural requirements, particularly regarding the application of anti-abuse provisions and documentation standards in the context of the new Act.
      • Comparative Jurisdictions: Similar transitional mechanisms have been employed in other tax jurisdictions to protect pre-existing incentives during tax reforms, underscoring the importance of legal certainty and investor confidence.

      Conclusion

      Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is a critical transitional provision that ensures continuity of tax incentives for SEZ developers who commenced their projects under the erstwhile section 80IAB. By referencing the repealed law, it upholds the principles of legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness, providing much-needed certainty for ongoing investments. The clause is meticulously aligned with the substantive provisions of section 80IAB, ensuring that the quantum, period, and conditions for deduction remain unchanged. However, it is strictly limited to cases where eligibility existed prior to the repeal, precluding any expansion of the benefit to new projects. While the provision addresses the core concern of transitional justice, certain ambiguities regarding procedural compliance and interpretational overlaps may necessitate further clarification through subordinate legislation or administrative guidance. The approach adopted in Clause 139 is consistent with global best practices in tax reform, balancing the imperatives of policy evolution with the need to honor past commitments.


      Full Text:

      Clause 139 Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in development of Special Economic Zone.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax