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

      Comparison of Section 2(22) "Capital Assets" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      The materials are two versions of the preliminary definitions provision: (i) Clause 2 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and (ii) Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]. The focal point for comparison is clause/sub-clause (22) (definition of "capital asset") and other textual variations within Clause/Section 2. These definitions determine the scope of capital gains and other chargeability concepts and therefore affect taxpayers, tax administrators and intermediaries such as FIIs, insurers and funds. Effective dates or commencement dates are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: definitions provision contained in Clause/Section 2 of the respective instrument. Coverage: comprehensive list of defined terms used throughout the income-tax statute, including "capital asset" at clause/section (22). The texts include sub-definitions, cross-references to other scheduled items and to provisions of other statutes (Companies Act, SEBI Act, FEMA, etc.). The texts supply detailed inclusions and exclusions relevant for chargeability and computation of capital gains. Any legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both texts define "capital asset" broadly as "property of any kind held by an assessee" and provide specified inclusions and exclusions. Key elements in both versions: (a) generic property; (b) securities held by foreign institutional investors or specified investment funds; (c) unit-linked insurance policies (subject to an exemption table); and exclusions for stock-in-trade, personal effects and certain agricultural land. The remainder of Clause/Section 2 supplies numerous other definitions that interact with capital gains provisions (e.g., "short-term capital asset", "transfer", "fair market value").

      Interpretation

      The text frames "capital asset" inclusively but carves out routine business inventory and certain types of agricultural land and personal effects. Cross-references to SEBI regulations, other sections (e.g., section 224(10)(a)), and schedules show legislative intent to align certain capital asset categories with sectoral regulation (FIIs, funds, insurance). The Act (As Passed) tends to use slightly different cross-references and more explicit modern drafting forms (e.g., clearer punctuation, additional parenthetical notes). Any express statement of legislative purpose is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Both versions list exceptions to "capital asset" including:

      • stock-in-trade (except for certain securities specified)
      • personal effects (with enumerated exclusions such as jewellery, works of art etc.)
      • agricultural land in India, unless situated in specified urban or peri-urban areas (distance/population criteria)
      • Gold Deposit Bonds / deposit certificates under specified schemes (subject to notification)

      Specific wording and scope of some provisos differ between the Bill and the Act; detailed differences follow.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A share held by an FII - both texts include securities held by certain foreign institutional investors within the definition, thereby making such shares capital assets for capital gains purposes.

      • Example 2: A painting held for personal use - both texts treat such work of art as excluded from "personal effects" exclusions (i.e., works of art are excluded from "personal effects" meaning they are treated as capital assets).

      • Example 3: Agricultural land beyond the prescribed distance from specified municipal limits - treated as non-capital asset (agricultural land excluded), subject to the distance/population table in the text.

      Interplay

      The definition cross-references SEBI regulations, the Companies Act, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and other statutory instruments (FEMA, Reserve Bank Act, Companies Act). The document itself does not reproduce attendant rules/notifications; therefore detailed operational interaction with those rules is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Provisions and Practical Impact of Each Change

      • Formulation and placement of sub-clause (22)(b) - FIIs and investment funds: The Bill (old version) uses a compact formulation - "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor or held by an investment fund specified in section 224(10)(a) which has invested in such securities as per the regulations..." The Act (As Passed) expands and rearranges wording: it expressly distinguishes securities held by (i) a Foreign Institution Investor which has invested in accordance with SEBI regulations, and (ii) an investment fund specified in section 224(10)(a) which has invested in accordance with SEBI regulations or under the International Financial Services Centres Authority Act, 2019.

        • Practical impact: the Act explicitly recognises IFSC Authority regulated funds as a route for investments to be treated as capital assets; the Bill's language is narrower/less explicit on IFSC reference. This clarifies tax treatment for funds operating under IFSC regime and reduces interpretive uncertainty for such funds. (Textual difference explicitly shown in the Act.)

      • Unit-linked insurance policy wording (22)(c): The Bill specifies "any unit linked insurance policy issued on or after 1st February, 2021 to which exemption under Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 2) does not apply." The Act states "any unit linked insurance policy to which exemption under Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 2) does not apply" (without the "issued on or after 1st February, 2021" temporal qualifier).

        • Practical impact: the Act's removal of the temporal qualifier broadens the category to include unit-linked policies irrespective of issuance date (subject to the Schedule II exemption). If intended, this expands the population of policies treated as capital assets and could affect capital gains computation for older policies that were outside scope in the Bill version. The documents themselves do not state legislative rationale.

      • Wording and granular drafting differences concerning agricultural land exclusions: Both texts retain the three-tier population/distance table but differ in presentation and minor phrasing (e.g., numeric rendering of population thresholds, "measured aerially", and references to clause numbering).

        • Practical impact: no substantive policy shift appears; differences are drafting/formatting. However, the Act's more detailed surrounding text (and punctuation) may reduce ambiguity in applying the distance test. The documents do not state transitional or interpretation guidance.

      • Definition of "personal effects": Both texts exclude "personal effects" but expressly list that jewellery, archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures and works of art are excluded from the definition of personal effects (meaning they are capital assets). The Act uses slightly different sub-paragraph labelling and inserts clarifying parentheticals (e.g., "which includes").

        • Practical impact: substantive treatment unchanged; drafting refinements in the Act may aid clarity in disputes concerning what constitutes "personal effects".

      • Cross-references, terminology modernisation and additional inclusions (Act): The Act adds or modifies some cross-references and parenthetical clarifications (for example, a more expansive definition of "securities" consistent with section references, and explicit inclusion of "property includes any rights in or in relation to an Indian company").

        • Practical impact: these drafting adjustments reduce potential interpretive gaps and align the definition with other restructured parts of the Act. The Bill text is somewhat older in phrasing; the Act text reflects finalised cross-references and added coverage (e.g., explicit mention of IFSC in the securities limb).

      • Minor drafting differences elsewhere in Clause/Section 2: There are multiple punctuation, phrase order and parenthetical differences across many definitions (e.g., "books or books of account", "domestic company", "document", "tax" etc.).

        • Practical impact: mostly clarificatory; no express substantive changes to core concepts are apparent from the provided texts. Any implication for interpretation beyond style and clarity is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Taxpayers and funds operating through IFSCs should note the Act's explicit inclusion of IFSC Authority regulated investment funds in the securities limb - this reduces uncertainty about whether securities held by those funds are capital assets for capital gains purposes.

      • The apparent removal of the issuance-date limitation for unit-linked insurance policies in the Act widens the set of policies treated as capital assets; insurers, policyholders and advisors should reassess historical policy disposals for capital gains implications.

      • Drafting clarifications (population/distance table, expanded parentheticals) may reduce contested interpretation on agricultural land exclusions and personal effects; practitioners should rely on the Act text for current analysis.

      • Given many cross-references to other Acts and SEBI/IFSC regulation, coordination between compliance teams (tax, regulatory) is necessary; the document does not supply procedural rules or notifications - those are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts keep an inclusive definition of "capital asset" with targeted exclusions (stock-in-trade, personal effects, certain agricultural land).

      • The As Passed Act expands/clarifies the securities limb to expressly include IFSC regulated investment vehicles and broadens the treatment of unit-linked policies by removing the issuance-date limitation present in the Bill.

      • Most other differences are drafting, cross-reference or formatting refinements intended to reduce ambiguity; no wholesale policy reversal is evident from the texts provided.

      • Practical consequence: IFSC funds and certain insurance policy disposals may face changed capital gains treatment under the Act; stakeholders should review positions against the final Act text.

      • Where the document does not state details (e.g., effective date, legislative intent, administrative guidance), those matters are Not stated in the document.


      Full Text:

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax