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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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