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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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