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

      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