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(101) "short-term capital asset" between the Income‑Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income‑Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced).

      19 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      These materials reproduce Section 2(101) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] and Clause 2(101) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both define "short-term capital asset" and set out special shorter holding periods (twelve months) for certain financial assets. The provision governs classification of capital assets for the purpose of computing capital gains and therefore affects taxpayers disposing of securities, units and specified bonds. Effective date or commencement details are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The provision appears in the definitional section (Section/Clause 2) of the proposed/ enacted income-tax statute and operates as a threshold rule for distinguishing short-term from long-term capital assets. It is linked to several substantive provisions referenced elsewhere (for example, sections governing capital gains and definitions such as "equity oriented fund" and "security"). The text supplies detailed rules for computing the period of holding in a number of specified situations (aggregations, conversions, allotments, transfers on corporate events, etc.).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Section 2(101) / Clause 2(101) defines "short-term capital asset" as a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than twenty-four months immediately preceding the date of its transfer (sub-clause (a)). Sub-clause (b) shortens that period to twelve months in respect of four categories: (i) a security listed on a recognised stock exchange in India; (ii) a unit of the Unit Trust of India; (iii) a unit of an equity-oriented fund; and (iv) a zero-coupon bond. Sub-clause (c) prescribes rules for determining the period for which an asset is held: exclusion of period after company liquidation, inclusion of prior ownership/holding periods in specified corporate restructuring, demutualisation and other events, reckoning commencement dates for assets arising on conversion, allotment, renunciation, free allotment, redemption of GDRs, and a catch-all for other assets to be prescribed.

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a deliberate legislative intent to retain the familiar two-tier holding-period regime that distinguishes financial assets (listed securities, specified units, zero-coupon bonds) for faster long-term treatment (i.e., 12 months threshold) from other assets (24 months). The numerous sub-items in clause (c) reflect an intent to prevent manipulation by artificial breaks in ownership on corporate events and to carry forward relevant holding periods from predecessor owners or prior rights. The provision uses technical cross-references (e.g., to sections 70, 73, 26(2)(j)) to tie the holding-period computation to established tax events. The legislative approach is consistent with traditional anti-abuse and continuity principles in capital gains taxation.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any transitional provisions, grandfathering rules, or special exceptions beyond the enumerated items. The provision does not itself state specific exemptions or alternative treatments other than the twelve-month reduction for the specified categories and the listed inclusions/exclusions in determining holding period. Where the provision refers to "in such manner, as may be prescribed" or to items "as may be prescribed", the details of the prescription (rules) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual purchases shares listed on a recognised Indian stock exchange and sells them after 10 months. Under sub-clause (b)(i) the shares are short-term (held not more than twelve months) and any gain is short-term capital gain. (Text support: definition and b(i)).

      • Example 2: An assessee acquires immovable property and sells after 18 months. As the property is not listed among sub-clause (b) categories, the default 24-month test in sub-clause (a) applies; 18 months is short-term. (Text support: sub-clause (a) and (b)).

      • Example 3: A unit of an equity oriented fund allotted to an employee on conversion of rights on day X - the holding period to be reckoned from date of allotment (sub-clause (c)(C)(I)-(V)). (Text support: specific reckoning rules in (c)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly refers to and interacts with other statutory provisions and schedules: sections 70, 73, 26(2)(j), section numbers defining "equity oriented fund" (section 198(8) in the passed Act), securities definition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, and prescribed rules. The provision leaves certain procedural and technical determinations to subordinate legislation ("as may be prescribed"), creating a dependency on future rules or notifications for complete application. Any interplay with rates, exemptions or indexation is Not stated in the document.

      Comparison: Section 2(101) (As Passed) v. Clause 2(101) (Old Bill)

      Summary of comparative findings:

      • Substantive threshold: Both texts retain the core rule: default short-term period = 24 months; shortened to 12 months for listed securities, UTI units, units of equity-oriented funds and zero-coupon bonds. There is no substantive change in these core thresholds between the old Bill text and the passed Act text as reproduced in the documents.
      • Detailing of holding-period computations: Both texts contain substantially similar lists of inclusions and exclusions when computing the period of holding (liquidation exclusion; carry-over of prior owner holdings in amalgamations/demergers; demutualisation; units/allotments; GDR redemption; conversion events; catch-all for prescribed manner). The ordering and numbering differ slightly as drafting variants, but the functional content matches.
      • Drafting differences: The passed Act version contains largely identical substantive sub-items, though minor editorial differences exist (punctuation, order of cross-references, some wording variants such as "there shall be included the period for which - (I) ...", versus slightly different phrasing in the Bill). These are drafting refinements and do not, on the face of the reproduced texts, alter meaning.
      • References to schedules/sections: Both texts reference the same companion definitions (e.g., "equity oriented fund", securities definitions). Cross-references appear consistent. Any differences in cross-section numbers or schedule references in the larger statute beyond the excerpt are Not stated in the document.
      • Prescriptive delegation: Both texts leave certain determinations "as may be prescribed." No new delegations or removal of delegated powers are visible in the comparison.

      Practical Implications

      • Classification continuity - no substantive policy shift: Tax practitioners and taxpayers can continue to apply the familiar two-tier holding period approach: 12 months for listed securities, UTI/equity fund units and zero-coupon bonds; 24 months for other assets. The passed Act does not materially change thresholds compared with the old Bill text shown.
      • Record-keeping emphasis: The detailed carry-over rules make accurate documentation of acquisition dates, allotment dates, dates of corporate events (demutualisation, amalgamation, demerger, redemption), and predecessor ownership histories important. The text supports continuity of holding periods across such events; supporting documents will be necessary to substantiate inclusion/exclusion claims under clause (c).
      • Transactions around corporate events: The provision reinforces that corporate reorganisations and allotments will not create artificial breaks in holding period for capital gains purposes. Taxpayers should track and preserve corporate scheme documents, share allotment records, demerger/amalgamation orders and valuations used in accounting (revaluations are disregarded for some calculations as noted elsewhere in Section 2 but specific interactions are Not stated in the document beyond the listed items).
      • Dependence on rules: Several aspects are deferred to rules to be prescribed. Practitioners should monitor rule-making for procedural details affecting transitional treatment and computation methods as the statute contemplates subordinate legislation for some technical determinations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both the passed Act and the earlier Bill maintain the two-tier holding-period test (24 months general; 12 months for listed securities, UTI/equity fund units and zero-coupon bonds).
      • No material substantive change in the content of definition 2(101) is apparent between the two reproduced texts; differences are drafting and formatting only.
      • The provision contains detailed rules to carry over holding periods across corporate reorganisations, allotments, conversions and demutualisation events; taxpayers must retain records documenting such events.
      • Several technical determinations are left to rules ("as may be prescribed"); practitioners should watch for notifications and rules implementing these specifics.
      • Effective application will require coordination with related provisions and with prescribed rules that are Not stated in the document.

      Action Points

      • Continue to treat listed securities, units of equity funds/UTI, and zero-coupon bonds as short-term if held <=12 months; treat other assets as short-term if <=24 months, unless and until subordinate rules indicate otherwise.
      • Maintain contemporaneous documentary evidence of acquisition/allotment dates, corporate scheme orders, and redemption requests to substantiate computation of holding period under the detailed sub-clauses.
      • Monitor official publications for rules or notifications prescribed under the enabling phrases in the clause, as those will flesh out calculation methodology and procedural requirements.

      Not stated in the document: implementation date, transitional provisions, any changes to tax rates or indexation treatment linked to this classification, or any explanatory memorandum that might indicate legislative policy considerations beyond the text reproduced.


      Full Text:

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax