Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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