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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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