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

      The Jurisprudence of Repeal and Savings in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      19 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 536 Repeal and savings.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a watershed moment in Indian tax jurisprudence, effecting the formal repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the 1961 Act") and introducing a comprehensive set of savings and transitional provisions. This clause is pivotal in ensuring legal continuity, protecting accrued rights, and providing mechanisms for the seamless migration from the old regime to the new. Its significance is best appreciated when analyzed in the context of Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which itself served as the transitional provision upon the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ("the 1922 Act"). The process of statutory repeal and savings is a critical legislative function, designed to prevent legal vacuums and protect vested rights and ongoing proceedings. Clause 536, much like Section 297 before it, is not merely a formal declaration of repeal but a detailed framework safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, the revenue, and the broader legal system. The clause also incorporates by reference the general principles of statutory interpretation as contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of legal continuity.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 536 is twofold: to formally repeal the 1961 Act and to provide for the continuity of legal actions, rights, obligations, and proceedings arising under the repealed law. The legislative intent is clear-to avoid disruption, prevent the abrogation of accrued rights or liabilities, and ensure that the transition to the new Income Tax Bill, 2025 ("the 2025 Bill") is orderly and just. Historically, such provisions are informed by the principle that the repeal of a statute should not, unless expressly provided, affect previous operations, rights, or liabilities. Section 297 of the 1961 Act was crafted with a similar intent, drawing upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Clause 536, however, is more detailed and nuanced, reflecting the complexities of modern taxation and the experience gained over six decades of the 1961 Act's operation.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 536 is divided into three main parts: (1) the formal repeal, (2) detailed savings and transitional provisions, and (3) the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

      3.1 Sub-clause (1): Formal Repeal

      This sub-clause declares that the Income-tax Act, 1961 is repealed. This is a formal, declaratory provision and is the legislative act that ends the operation of the 1961 Act, subject to the savings and transitional provisions that follow.

      3.2 Sub-clause (2): Savings and Transitional Provisions

      This sub-clause, running from (a) to (v), is the heart of Clause 536. Each item addresses a specific aspect of the transition:

      • (a) Previous Operation and Acts Done: Ensures that the repeal does not affect anything already done or suffered under the 1961 Act. This is fundamental to legal certainty, protecting actions and events that occurred under the old law.
      • (b) Rights, Privileges, Obligations, Liabilities: Protects all rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities accrued or incurred under the repealed Act. This provision is vital for upholding the doctrine of vested rights.
      • (c) Continuation of Proceedings: Proceedings (including notices, assessments, reassessments, rectifications, penalties, references, revisions, and appeals) relating to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026 will continue under the 1961 Act. This ensures that assessments for past years are not disrupted by the change in law.
      • (d) Penalty Proceedings: Proceedings for penalties relating to tax years before 1 April 2026 may be initiated and imposed as if the 2025 Bill had not been enacted. This provision prevents taxpayers from escaping penalties due to the repeal.
      • (e) Pending Proceedings: Any proceeding pending before any authority, tribunal, or court at the commencement of the 2025 Bill will continue as if the new Act had not been enacted. This is crucial for judicial and administrative continuity.
      • (f) Elections/Declarations/Options: Any election, declaration, or option exercised under the 1961 Act, and in force immediately before the commencement of the new Act, is deemed to be under the corresponding provision of the 2025 Bill. This prevents the need for taxpayers to re-exercise options or declarations.
      • (g) Refunds and Defaults: For proceedings relating to tax years before 1 April 2026, if a refund becomes due or a default occurs after commencement of the new Act, the provisions of the new Act regarding interest will apply prospectively. This harmonizes the interest regime and ensures fairness.
      • (h) Conditional Deductions/Exclusions: If deductions or exclusions were allowed under the 1961 Act subject to conditions, and those conditions are violated after 1 April 2026, the sums are deemed to be income in the year of violation, taxable under the new Act. This preserves the integrity of conditional tax benefits.
      • (i) Recovery of Sums: Any sum payable under the 1961 Act may be recovered under the new Act, without prejudice to actions already taken under the old law. This ensures enforceability of outstanding tax liabilities.
      • (j) Continuation of Agreements, Approvals, etc.: Agreements, appointments, approvals, recognitions, directions, instructions, notifications, orders, or rules under the 1961 Act, not inconsistent with the new Act, are deemed to continue under the new Act. This fosters continuity in tax administration.
      • (k) Expiry of Limitation Periods: Where the period for making applications, appeals, references, or revisions under the 1961 Act had expired before the new Act commenced, the new Act does not revive those rights merely by providing a longer or extendable period.
      • (l) Tax Credit Carry Forwards (MAT/AMT): Tax credits u/ss 115JAA and 115JD of the 1961 Act for years before 1 April 2026 are carried forward to the new Act, subject to continued eligibility.
      • (m) Loss Carry Forwards: Losses under specified heads (house property, business, speculation, specified business, race horses) brought forward from years before 1 April 2026 are to be set off and carried forward under the new Act as per the old Act's provisions.
      • (n) Capital Loss Carry Forwards: Capital losses u/s 74 of the 1961 Act, brought forward from pre-2026 years, are to be set off against capital gains under the new Act for up to eight years.
      • (o) Set-off of Loss/Depreciation on Amalgamation: Set-offs allowed u/s 72A (amalgamations) in pre-2026 years are deemed income if conditions are breached after 2026.
      • (p) Set-off for Co-operative Banks: Similar provision for co-operative banks u/s 72AB.
      • (q) Deemed Capital Gains on Breach of Exemptions: Gains exempted u/s 47 (various reorganizations) are taxed under the new Act if post-2026 conditions are violated.
      • (r) Unabsorbed Depreciation/Allowances: Unabsorbed depreciation or allowances u/ss 32(2), 35(4) are carried forward and deemed part of the corresponding allowance under the new Act.
      • (s) Deferred Revenue Expenditure: Deductions under specified sections (35ABB, 35D, 35DD, 35DDA, 35E, and first proviso to 36(1)(ix)) are continued under the new Act if conditions are met.
      • (t) Bad Debt Provisions: Credit balances in bad debt provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) as of 31 March 2026 are carried forward to the new Act.
      • (u) E-schemes: Schemes for faceless assessments or other digital processes notified under the 1961 Act are deemed to continue under the new Act or u/s 294B if there is no corresponding provision.
      • (v) Search and Seizure Proceedings: Searches or requisitions initiated before 1 April 2026 continue to be governed by the 1961 Act.

      3.3 Sub-clause (3): General Clauses Act Application

      This sub-clause clarifies that, in addition to the above, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which lays down general principles on the effect of repeal, will apply. This is a standard savings provision, reinforcing the statutory framework for legal continuity.

      4. Practical Implications

      The practical implications of Clause 536 are profound and multifaceted:

      • Taxpayers: Individuals and businesses are protected from retrospective changes that could unsettle settled assessments, rights, or liabilities. Losses, credits, and deductions are preserved, and ongoing proceedings are not prejudiced by the change in law.
      • Revenue Authorities: The authorities retain the power to assess, collect, and enforce tax liabilities arising under the old law for prior years, ensuring no revenue loss due to the repeal.
      • Legal System: Courts and tribunals can continue to adjudicate pending matters under the old law, avoiding confusion or jurisdictional disputes.
      • Compliance: Taxpayers must be vigilant in understanding which law applies to which year, especially for transitional years. The carry-forward and set-off provisions require careful tracking of eligibility and compliance with conditions under both regimes.
      • Digital Administration: The explicit savings of schemes for faceless or electronic processes ensure that technological advancements in tax administration are not disrupted.

      5. Comparative Analysis with Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      A detailed comparison reveals both continuity and significant evolution in approach:

      5.1 Structural Similarities

      Both provisions serve the same core function: to repeal the old law and provide for the savings of rights, liabilities, and proceedings. Both incorporate the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and both contain specific sub-clauses dealing with pending proceedings, rights, approvals, and recovery of sums.

      5.2 Key Differences and Advancements

      • Scope and Detail: Clause 536 is far more detailed and granular than Section 297. While Section 297 provided a broad framework, Clause 536 anticipates a wider range of scenarios, reflecting the increased complexity of the tax system since 1961.
      • Temporal Application: Section 297 primarily dealt with the transition from the 1922 Act to the 1961 Act, focusing on assessment years up to 31 March 1962. Clause 536 applies to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, with explicit references to the treatment of losses, credits, and deductions over multiple years.
      • Carry Forward of Losses and Credits: Section 297 had limited provisions regarding carry forward of losses and credits. Clause 536, by contrast, contains detailed provisions on the carry forward and set-off of various types of losses (business, speculation, capital gains, etc.), MAT/AMT credits, and unabsorbed depreciation, reflecting the evolution of tax incentives and computations over the decades.
      • Conditional Deductions and Violations: Clause 536 introduces specific provisions (e.g., sub-clause (h), (o), (p), (q)) for the treatment of deductions or exemptions allowed under the old law, but subject to conditions that may be breached after the transition. This ensures that the tax base is protected against post-repeal violations of conditions attached to pre-repeal benefits.
      • Digital and Faceless Schemes: Clause 536 uniquely addresses the continuity of digital and faceless assessment schemes, which did not exist in 1961. This is a forward-looking provision, ensuring administrative continuity in a digital era.
      • Interest on Refunds and Defaults: Both provisions provide for the application of the new law's interest provisions to refunds and defaults arising after the commencement of the new Act, but relating to earlier years. However, Clause 536 is more explicit in its application and scope.
      • Pending Proceedings: Both provisions allow for the continuation of pending proceedings under the old law. However, Clause 536 is more comprehensive, covering a wider range of proceedings (including notices, assessments, re-assessments, rectifications, penalties, references, revisions, and appeals).
      • Agreements and Notifications: Both provisions save agreements, appointments, approvals, recognitions, directions, instructions, notifications, orders, and rules under the old law, provided they are not inconsistent with the new law. Clause 536, however, omits the specific reference to notifications u/s 60/60A, which was relevant to the 1922 Act transition.
      • Limitation Periods: Both provisions prevent the revival of applications, appeals, or revisions where the limitation period had expired under the old law, merely because the new law provides a longer or extendable period.
      • Search and Seizure: Clause 536 specifically provides for the continuation of search and seizure proceedings initiated before 1 April 2026 under the old Act, a reflection of the increased importance and frequency of such actions in modern tax administration.

      5.3 Policy and Legal Evolution

      The differences between the two provisions reflect broader changes in tax policy, administration, and the legal landscape. The increased detail and specificity in Clause 536 indicate a legislative intent to minimize ambiguity, preempt disputes, and provide certainty to taxpayers and the administration alike. The explicit provisions for digital schemes and the more nuanced treatment of conditional benefits reflect the lessons learned from decades of tax litigation and the need for clarity in transitional situations.

      5.4 Potential Issues and Ambiguities

      Despite its detail, Clause 536 may give rise to interpretive issues, particularly in areas such as:

      • Identifying the "corresponding provisions" under the new Act for the purposes of elections, options, or deductions.
      • Determining the treatment of benefits or liabilities where the new Act materially alters the conditions or definitions applicable under the old law.
      • Ensuring that the carry forward of losses, credits, and deductions is seamless, particularly in complex group structures or reorganizations.
      • Transitional issues for digital schemes where the new Act's provisions differ from the old law or where no direct correspondence exists.

      These are, however, inherent in any major legislative transition and are typically resolved through subordinate legislation, administrative guidance, or judicial interpretation.

      6. Conclusion

      Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a sophisticated and comprehensive approach to statutory repeal and savings in the context of Indian income tax law. Building on the foundation laid by Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it provides a detailed and nuanced framework for the protection of rights, continuation of proceedings, and preservation of legal and administrative continuity. The clause reflects both the increased complexity of the tax regime and the evolution of legal and administrative practice over the past six decades. The comparative analysis demonstrates both continuity in legal principles and significant advancement in legislative technique. Clause 536 is more detailed, forward-looking, and responsive to the realities of modern tax administration than its predecessor, Section 297. It is likely to serve as a model for future legislative transitions in India and elsewhere.


      Full Text:

      Clause 536 Repeal and savings.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax