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(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

Acts Income Tax