Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Transitional Tax Incentives for Affordable Housing : Clause 142 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80IBA of Income-tax Act, 1961

      18 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

       

      Clause 142 Deductions in respect of profits and gains from housing projects.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 142 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, proposes a framework for deductions in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of developing and building housing projects, including rental housing projects. This provision is a crucial transitional mechanism, referencing and preserving the essential features of the now-repealed Section 80IBA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The legislative intent behind Clause 142 is to ensure continuity of tax benefits for eligible housing projects that were entitled to such deductions under the previous regime, thus avoiding abrupt disruption to ongoing projects and the broader real estate sector. Section 80IBA, introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 and subsequently amended, was a pivotal provision in the Income-tax Act, 1961, designed to incentivize the development of affordable housing and, later, rental housing projects. It provided for a 100% deduction of profits and gains derived from eligible housing projects, subject to a series of stringent conditions relating to project approval, completion, size, utilization of floor area ratio, and other regulatory parameters. This commentary will provide a detailed analysis of Clause 142, its objectives, operative mechanism, and practical implications. Subsequently, an exhaustive comparative analysis with Section 80IBA will be presented, highlighting similarities, differences, and the legal and practical consequences of the transition from Section 80IBA to Clause 142.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 142 is to provide a seamless transition for taxpayers who were eligible for deductions u/s 80IBA prior to the repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The intent is to prevent any unintended hardship or loss of tax benefits for ongoing housing and rental housing projects that commenced under the old regime but are now subject to the provisions of the new Income Tax Bill, 2025. Section 80IBA was originally enacted to address the acute shortage of affordable housing in India and to stimulate private sector participation in this sector. By offering a substantial tax incentive-full deduction of profits from eligible projects-Section 80IBA sought to make affordable housing projects financially viable and attractive to developers. The provision was later expanded to include rental housing projects, further broadening its social and economic impact. Clause 142, therefore, serves a dual purpose:

      • It preserves the legislative intent and policy thrust of Section 80IBA for ongoing projects, ensuring that the repeal of the old Act does not retroactively penalize or disadvantage eligible assessees.
      • It provides legal certainty and predictability for developers, investors, and other stakeholders in the real estate sector, thereby supporting the broader policy objective of promoting affordable and rental housing.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 142

      Clause 142 is structured as a transitional provision, and its operative mechanism is as follows:

      1. Eligibility:
        • Applies to any assessee whose gross total income for a tax year includes profits and gains derived from the business of developing and building housing or rental housing projects referred to in Section 80IBA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        • The assessee must be eligible to claim a deduction u/s 80IBA, had the Act not been repealed.
      2. Quantum and Computation of Deduction:
        • The deduction allowed is to be calculated as per the provisions of Section 80IBA.
      3. Temporal Limitation:
        • The deduction is available only for such tax years as would have been allowed u/s 80IBA, if the Act had not been repealed.

      Thus, Clause 142 does not create a new regime but incorporates Section 80IBA by reference for the limited purpose of ensuring continuity of deductions for ongoing projects.

      Interpretative Issues and Ambiguities

      Several interpretative issues may arise under Clause 142:

      • Reference to Repealed Law: Clause 142 relies entirely on the provisions of Section 80IBA, which will no longer be in force. This "incorporation by reference" approach requires careful interpretation to avoid ambiguity, especially if disputes arise regarding the meaning or application of specific conditions u/s 80IBA.
      • Eligibility Cut-off: The clause is silent on whether new projects commenced after the repeal of the old Act would be eligible, or only those already in progress. However, the reference to eligibility "if the said Act had not been repealed" suggests that only ongoing projects approved under the old law are covered.
      • Procedural Requirements: The clause does not specify procedural aspects such as documentation, application, or compliance mechanisms, instead relying on the procedures that would have applied u/s 80IBA.
      • Potential for Litigation: Any ambiguity in the interpretation of the "conditions" or "tax years" referenced may give rise to disputes, especially in cases where project timelines, approvals, or other factors are in question.

      Key Features and Conditions (by reference to Section 80IBA)

      Since Clause 142 adopts the provisions of Section 80IBA, the following key features are incorporated:

      • 100% Deduction: The entire profits and gains derived from eligible housing or rental housing projects are deductible.
      • Project Approval and Completion: The project must be approved by the competent authority within the specified dates and completed within five years of approval.
      • Size and Area Restrictions: Stringent limits on plot size, carpet area of residential units, and commercial area within the project.
      • Utilization of Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Minimum utilization thresholds for FAR, varying by location.
      • Allotment Restrictions: No individual, their spouse, or minor children can be allotted more than one unit in the project.
      • Separate Books of Account: Assessee must maintain separate books for the project.
      • Exclusion of Works Contracts: Projects executed as works contracts are ineligible.
      • Clawback Provision: If the project is not completed within the specified period, the deduction is reversed and taxed as income in the year of default.

      Practical Implications

      1. Impact on Developers and Real Estate Sector

      The preservation of the deduction through Clause 142 is crucial for developers who have structured their projects and financing based on the availability of Section 80-IBA benefits. Abrupt withdrawal could have resulted in significant tax liabilities, disruption of business models, and potential litigation. By maintaining continuity, the provision supports ongoing investment in affordable and rental housing, which remains a policy priority for the government.

      2. Compliance and Procedural Aspects

      Assessees must continue to comply with all the substantive and procedural requirements of Section 80-IBA, including maintaining separate books of account, obtaining timely project approvals and completion certificates, and ensuring adherence to unit size and value restrictions. Given the clawback provision, there is a strong incentive for developers to ensure project completion within the stipulated time to avoid retrospective taxation of deductions already claimed.

      3. Regulatory and Administrative Considerations

      Tax authorities will need to apply the old Section 80-IBA standards in respect of claims under Clause 142, even after the repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This may require continued reference to repealed law and associated jurisprudence, potentially complicating administration and dispute resolution.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 142 vs. Section 80IBA

      1. Structural Approach

      • Section 80IBA: Operated as a substantive provision, directly conferring the deduction subject to compliance with detailed conditions.
      • Clause 142: Functions as a transitional or savings provision, referencing Section 80IBA for its operative content, rather than setting out independent conditions.

      2. Scope and Applicability

      • Section 80IBA: Applied to projects approved after 1st June 2016 and on or before 31st March 2022 (with amendments extending dates for certain projects), and to rental housing projects notified up to 31st March 2022.
      • Clause 142: Applies only to assessees who would have been eligible u/s 80IBA "if the said Act had not been repealed." It does not extend the benefit to new projects approved after the repeal.

      3. Quantum of Deduction

      • Section 80IBA: 100% of profits and gains derived from eligible business.
      • Clause 142: Deduction quantum is identical, as it is calculated "as per the provisions of Section 80IBA."

      4. Conditions and Compliance

      • Section 80IBA: Specifies detailed conditions relating to project approval, completion, size, FAR utilization, allotment restrictions, separate books, and others.
      • Clause 142: Incorporates all such conditions by reference. The compliance burden and standards remain unchanged for transitional cases.

      5. Time Limitation

      • Section 80IBA: Benefits are available for the duration specified in the section, i.e., for projects completed within five years of approval, and for profits earned during such period.
      • Clause 142: The deduction is allowed "only for such tax years, as would have been allowed u/s 80IBA," ensuring no extension of benefit beyond the original scope.

      6. Definitions and Interpretations

      • Section 80IBA: Contains detailed definitions for "carpet area," "competent authority," "floor area ratio," "housing project," "rental housing project," "residential unit," and "stamp duty value."
      • Clause 142: Relies on all such definitions as incorporated from Section 80IBA, maintaining interpretative continuity.

      7. Clawback and Anti-abuse Provisions

      • Section 80IBA: Contains a clawback mechanism: if the project is not completed within the specified period, deductions allowed are taxed as business income in the year of default.
      • Clause 142: By incorporating Section 80IBA, the clawback and anti-abuse provisions remain fully applicable to transitional cases.

      8. Exclusion of Works Contracts

      • Section 80IBA: Explicitly excludes assessees executing projects as works contracts.
      • Clause 142: Maintains this exclusion by reference.

      9. Policy and Legislative Intent

      • Section 80IBA: Reflected an active policy to incentivize affordable and rental housing.
      • Clause 142: Reflects a policy of non-disruption and protection of vested rights for ongoing projects, rather than creating new incentives.

      10. Administrative and Procedural Aspects

      • Section 80IBA: Procedures were governed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 and associated rules.
      • Clause 142: Leaves procedural aspects to be governed as per the repealed law, which may require clarificatory guidance from the tax authorities for smooth administration.

      Potential Issues and Areas for Further Clarification

      • Interpretation of "Eligibility": Whether projects that received partial approvals or underwent modifications post-repeal are eligible may require clarification.
      • Procedural Guidance: The absence of explicit procedural rules under the new law may create practical difficulties for both assessees and tax authorities.
      • Dispute Resolution: Transitional provisions often give rise to litigation regarding the scope and application of the savings clause, especially where facts are complex or documentation is incomplete.
      • Future Policy Direction: The absence of a similar incentive under the new law may impact the pace of affordable and rental housing development going forward.

      Conclusion

      Clause 142 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is a carefully crafted transitional provision designed to safeguard the interests of assessees with ongoing housing and rental housing projects that were eligible for deduction under Section 80IBA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 1961. By incorporating the operative content of Section 80IBA by reference, Clause 142 ensures legal continuity, protects vested rights, and upholds the policy objectives underlying the original provision. However, the reliance on a repealed law for the operative mechanism introduces interpretative and administrative challenges, particularly regarding eligibility, compliance, and procedural aspects. Tax authorities may need to issue clarificatory guidance to ensure smooth implementation and prevent disputes.

      The comparative analysis reveals that Clause 142 is not a substantive re-enactment but a transitional savings provision, preserving the benefit only for those who had a legitimate expectation under the old regime. It does not extend or expand the benefit to new projects commenced after the repeal, signaling a shift in policy focus under the new tax regime. The future of tax incentives for affordable and rental housing will depend on the policy choices reflected in the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, and subsequent legislative or administrative actions. Stakeholders must closely monitor developments and ensure robust compliance with the transitional framework to avoid adverse tax consequences.


      Full Text:

      Clause 142 Deductions in respect of profits and gains from housing projects.

       

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax