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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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 26 "Income under head Profits and gains of business or profession" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      20 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      These documents present the enacted Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 ["As Passed"] (Document 1) and an earlier draft of Clause 26 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Both provisions charge income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and set out an inclusive list of items treated as business/professional income. The changes between the two texts are largely phrasing and cross-reference adjustments, with a few substantive drafting shifts that may affect the scope of recapture and the cross-referenced deduction regime. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business or profession, partners and firms, and the tax department; effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: both texts are presented as Clause/Section 26 under the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025 and fall under the Part D heading "Profits and gains of business or profession". The clause(s) seek to define income chargeable under that head and provide an inclusive list of items to be regarded as such income. The texts contain internal cross-references to other provisions - e.g., section 35(e), section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, section 46 and in the older draft a reference to "Chapter IV-D". Definitions beyond the inclusive list are Not stated in the document. The documents do not state commencement/notification details.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both versions establish that income from any business or profession carried on during the tax year is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Each provides an inclusive list (sub-section (2)) covering: profits/gains of business or profession; compensation/payments on termination/modification of management/agency/contract; compensation for vesting management in Government; income of trade/professional associations for services to members; profits on sale of licences or export incentives; value of benefits/perquisites from business/profession; partner remuneration/amounts from firm; sums for not carrying out business activity or for not sharing know-how/intangible rights; Keyman insurance proceeds; fair market value of inventory when converted/treated as capital asset; and specific recapture where a capital asset (other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) is demolished/destroyed/discarded/transferred and its whole expenditure was allowed as a deduction under specified provisions.

      Interpretation

      The texts adopt an inclusive definition approach: items listed are expressly brought into business/professional income. The language used (e.g., "shall include") indicates a non-exhaustive list as typical in tax charging provisions. The enacted text shifts certain cross-references and expands the recapture reference to other statutory provisions (see below). Legislative intent as an overarching aim is to capture receipts related to business/professional activity and to provide recapture rules where capital allowances/deductions have been previously claimed - explicit legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The provision contains specific carve-outs in sub-clause (h)(i)(A) and (B) excluding (A) sums received on transfer of rights chargeable under the head "Capital gains" and (B) compensation from the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund under terms agreed with Government of India. Sub-section (4) excludes rental income from letting of residential house by the owner from this head and directs that such income be charged under "Income from house property". Other general exceptions or thresholds are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A partner receives salary/commission from the firm. The payment is included under clause (g) and is to be treated in accordance with the extent allowed under the deduction cross-reference (Document 1: "section 35(e)"; Document 2: "Chapter IV-D").
      • Example 2: A company sells an import licence and realises a profit on sale; this profit is included under clause (e) as business income.
      • Example 3: Machinery (a capital asset other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) on which the whole expenditure was allowed under the cited deduction provision is demolished and some sum is received; clause (k) brings the receipt into business income (but the governing deduction reference differs between the texts).

      Interplay

      Both variants cross-refer to other provisions for deductions and for recapture. The enacted text explicitly references section 35(e) and u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 alongside section 46 of the 2025 Act for recapture scenarios; the earlier draft references "Chapter IV-D" for partner remuneration and refers only to section 46 for recapture. Any interplay with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Documents and Practical Impact

      • Opening paragraph/sub-section (1) wording: Old draft states "The income from any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the tax year shall be chargeable...". Enacted version states "The incomes referred to in sub-section (2) shall be chargeable...".
        • Practical impact: drafting shift narrows the immediate charging phrase to the items enumerated in sub-section (2), while the prior draft framed the charge as broader "income from any business or profession". The practical interpretive difference is limited because both texts ultimately list the items; the enacted wording may emphasise the inclusive list as the operative charge. The precise legal effect is contingent on interpretive practice and is Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (e): Old text uses "input licence"; enacted text uses "import licence".
        • Practical impact: this is a material textual difference. If "input licence" in the old draft was unintended or a drafting error, the enacted text clarifies that profits on sale of import licences are included. The documents do not state whether "input licence" was an error or intended; therefore, the practical effect is that the enacted text clearly captures profits on sale of import licences and similar export incentives. Any consequences for licences termed "input licence" are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (g) - cross-reference for partner payments: Old draft refers to deduction "under Chapter IV-D" as a deduction in computing the firm's income; enacted text refers to "section 35(e) as a deduction in computing the income of the firm".
        • Practical impact: this is a substantive cross-reference change which may alter how partner payments are assessed against firm deductions. Whether section 35(e) reproduces, narrows or expands the former Chapter IV-D rules is Not stated in the document; stakeholders must compare the referenced provisions to determine precise tax treatment and availment of deductions.
      • Clause (h)(ii) - scope of excluded consideration verbiage: Old draft ends with "information or technical know-how likely to assist..." whereas enacted text reads "information or technique likely to assist...".
        • Practical impact: marginal wording change; potential interpretive nuance between "technical know-how" and "information or technique" may slightly broaden or shift the class of protected items, but the documents provide no legislative clarification on intent.
      • Clause (j) - manner of valuation: Old draft uses "determined in the manner, as prescribed"; enacted text uses "determined in the manner, as may be prescribed".
        • Practical impact: enacted wording explicitly contemplates rule-making power ("may be prescribed"), but both formulations are typically used to enable subordinate legislation; the practical change is minimal and procedural - specific rules are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (k)(ii) - recapture reference: Old draft brought sums into business income where whole of the expenditure had been allowed as a deduction "u/s 46". Enacted text broadens the reference to "u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 46 of this Act."
        • Practical impact: the enacted version expressly captures cases where capital asset expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD (1961 Act) in addition to section 46 of the 2025 Act, thereby broadening recapture to assets benefiting from section 35AD allowances. This is a substantive expansion of recapture scope; however, the precise operation depends on the text of section 35AD and section 46, which are Not stated in the document.
      • General drafting and punctuation differences: There are minor editorial and structural differences (e.g., "by whatever name called" vs "by whatever named called", placement of commas and hyphens).
        • Practical impact: mostly stylistic, though consistent drafting reduces interpretive ambiguity.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should note the broadened recapture reference (inclusion of u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961) - assets whose costs were wholly allowed under such provisions may generate business income upon demolition/destruction/discard/transfer. Firms and partners must review the applicable deduction cross-reference (section 35(e) in enacted text) when accounting for partner remuneration and when determining firm taxable income. The documents do not provide procedural guidance or transitional rules; transitional treatment is Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where receipts arise from termination/modification of management/agency/contract, sale of licences, non-competition agreements, or Keyman insurance proceeds, taxpayers should retain contracts, calculation workings, valuations (for fair market value of inventory converted to capital asset), details of allowances claimed u/s 35AD or section 46, and firm resolution/partnership deeds evidencing partner payments - the document does not prescribe specific records but the inclusive list implies evidentiary needs relevant to these items.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts adopt an inclusive list of items treated as income from business or profession; enacted text rephrases the charging language to focus on the items enumerated in sub-section (2).
      • Enacted text clarifies "import licence" (instead of "input licence" in draft), which clarifies inclusion of profits on sale of import licences/export incentives.
      • Cross-reference for partner remuneration shifted from "Chapter IV-D" (draft) to "section 35(e)" (enacted), which may affect deduction mechanics - compare the referenced provisions to determine impact.
      • Recapture scope expanded in the enacted text to include cases where whole expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to section 46 - potentially broader taxability on demolition/destruction/discard/transfer of certain capital assets.
      • Several wording and drafting adjustments are editorial in nature; where substantive differences exist, the documents do not supply the surrounding provision texts or legislative history to resolve interpretive issues.

      Full Text:

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax