Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax