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 8 "Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person" 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 8 Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person from specified entity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      This document compares Section 8 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (As Passed) with Clause 8 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both texts address the tax treatment where a specified person receives capital assets or stock-in-trade from a specified entity on dissolution or reconstitution. The most significant change in the As Passed text is removal of a two-year time-limit for the Board to issue guidelines with Central Government approval. Affected parties: firms, other associations of persons or bodies of individuals (non-companies, non-co-operative societies) and their partners/members; tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 8 (As Passed) and the corresponding Clause 8 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both provisions cover a deemed transfer for income-tax purposes when a specified person receives capital asset(s) or stock-in-trade from a specified entity in connection with dissolution or reconstitution. Definitions provided in the texts include "specified entity", "specified person", and "reconstitution of the specified entity" with three illustrative circumstances. The texts set valuation at fair market value on the date of receipt for computing the full value of consideration. The Bill/Act contemplates issuance of guidelines by the Board (with prior Central Government approval) to remove difficulties in giving effect to the section and to provide parliamentary oversight by laying such guidelines before both Houses.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The clause/section applies when a specified person receives any capital asset or stock-in-trade (or both) from a specified entity during a tax year in connection with the dissolution or reconstitution of that entity. The specified entity is deemed to have transferred the asset(s) to the specified person in the year of receipt.

      Elements/ingredients: (1) Existence of specified entity (firm or other association of persons or body of individuals, not a company or co-operative society); (2) Specified person (partner or member of such entity in any tax year); (3) Receipt by the specified person during the tax year of capital asset(s) or stock-in-trade from the specified entity in connection with dissolution or reconstitution; (4) Deemed transfer by the specified entity in the year of receipt; (5) Valuation rule: fair market value on the date of receipt is deemed full value of consideration for that deemed transfer; (6) Taxability: profits and gains arising from the deemed transfer are deemed income of the specified entity and chargeable under "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Capital gains".

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The provision treats distribution of assets on dissolution/reconstitution as a deemed transfer by the entity, thereby pulling the tax incidence to the entity for profits/gains arising on such deemed transfer. This prevents tax-neutral distribution that would otherwise defer or avoid taxation on unrealised gains at entity level. The valuation method (fair market value on date of receipt) indicates an intent to capture economic value at the point of distribution. The power to issue guidelines (with Central Government approval) and parliamentary laying suggests the legislature anticipated implementation issues and delegated limited rule-making to the Board subject to oversight.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs/conditions: The text provides definitional limits: only applies to non-company, non-co-operative society entities and their partners/members. The reconstitution scenarios are listed exhaustively in three sub-clauses (cessation of partners/members; admission of new partners while at least one prior person continues; change in shares among continuing partners). No express exemptions or threshold monetary limits are provided in the section.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A firm (non-company) dissolves and transfers stock-in-trade to Partner A in the tax year. The firm is deemed to have transferred the stock-in-trade in that year; fair market value on the date of receipt by Partner A is treated as full consideration and any profits/gains on that deemed transfer are taxed as income of the firm under profits and gains of business or capital gains. (All facts hypothetical; consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: In a reconstitution where partner X leaves and partner Y is admitted but at least one old partner continues, the assets allotted to a continuing partner on reconstitution are treated as deemed transfers by the entity in the year of receipt and valued at fair market value for tax purposes.

      Interplay

      Interactions with other provisions: The section calls out section 67(10) as a related provision for which the Board may issue guidelines to remove difficulties; the text anticipates procedural or interpretive interplay with that section. No other statutory cross-references or Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the documents provided.

      Differences and Practical Impact

      Identify key differences between As Passed and Old Version

      TopicClause 8 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)Section 8 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (As Passed)
      Guidelines - time limitContains express sunset: "No guideline under sub-section (4) shall be issued after the expiration of two years from the 1st April, 2026."Sunset provision removed; no time limit on issuance of guidelines is present.
      Placement/numbering of paragraphsDefinitions appear in sub-section (7); parliamentary laying provision numbered (6); ordering slightly different.Definitions appear in sub-section (6); parliamentary laying provision numbered (5); numbering adjusted.
      Valuation language"In this section, fair market value ... shall be deemed to be the full value...""For the purposes of this section, fair market value ... shall be deemed to be the full value..."
      Minor textual/phrasing differencesClause (2)(ii) ends with "as per this Act."Clause (2)(ii) omits the phrase "as per this Act."
      Formatting/punctuationMinor punctuation differences (comma placement) and conjunctions observed.Formatting adjusted; no substantive change indicated by punctuation alone.

      Practical impact of each change

      • Removal of two-year sunset for guidelines: Material and substantive. Under the Old Version the Board's power to issue guidelines to remove difficulties was time-limited (expiration two years from 1 April 2026). The As Passed removes that temporal restriction, leaving the guideline-making power open-ended (subject to prior Central Government approval and parliamentary laying).

        • Practical impact: the executive (Board, with Central Government approval) retains ongoing delegated authority to issue interpretive/implementation guidelines for this section and section 67(10) indefinitely. This increases administrative flexibility for the tax authorities and prolongs the period in which procedural or interpretive guidance may be promulgated; it may also raise concerns for taxpayers about continuing rule-making after enactment.

      • Renumbering/relocation of definitions and parliamentary laying clause: Largely formal; no substantive legal consequence beyond internal organization of the provision.

        • Practical impact: minimal for taxpayers; potential administrative housekeeping for drafters and citators.

      • Valuation phrasing change ("In this section" -> "For the purposes of this section"): Stylistic; intended effect appears the same - to make clear fair market value on date of receipt is the deemed full value of consideration.

        • Practical impact: negligible.

      • Omission of "as per this Act" in clause (2)(ii): A textual streamlining.

        • Practical impact: none apparent from the text - chargeability under heads of income remains specified.

      • Punctuation/formatting edits: No substantive impact.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Entities (non-company firms/AoPs/BoIs) should expect taxation at the entity level on deemed transfers when assets are distributed on dissolution/reconstitution. Tax computation must use fair market value on date of receipt. Removal of the guideline time-limit means taxpayers should monitor for future guidelines that may clarify procedures, timelines or valuation mechanics; such guidance may be issued beyond the initial two-year window.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The provision emphasises fair market value on the date of receipt - taxpayers should retain contemporaneous valuation evidence, asset records, minutes/agreements of reconstitution or dissolution, and any communications documenting the distribution to specified persons. Where guidelines are later issued, they may prescribe forms or procedures; records should be kept to comply with such future guidance.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section 8 treats distribution of capital assets or stock-in-trade to partners/members on dissolution/reconstitution as a deemed transfer by the entity taxable at the entity level.
      • Fair market value on the date of receipt is the deemed full value of consideration for tax computation.
      • Main substantive change from the Bill to the Act: removal of a two-year sunset on the Board's power to issue guidelines (with Central Government approval) - guidelines may now be issued without the earlier temporal limit.
      • The Board's guideline-making power remains subject to prior Central Government approval and parliamentary laying; procedural oversight continues.
      • No monetary thresholds, exemptions, or procedural timeframes are specified in the section; details may be left to guidelines (which are now not time-limited).
      • Taxpayers should preserve valuation evidence and documents evidencing dissolution/reconstitution and distributions; watch for future guidelines that may prescribe methods or forms.

      Full Text:

      Section 8 Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person from specified entity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax