Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 38 "Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 38 Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 38 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (hereafter "Old Version"). This commentary analyses Clause 38 as presented in the Bill (Old Version) and, where relevant, highlights differences introduced in Section 38 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] (hereafter "As Passed"). The provision determines particular receipts that will be deemed profits and gains of business or profession and thus taxable; it primarily affects taxpayers carrying on business or profession, successor entities on reorganisation, and tax administration. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 38 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version addresses "profits and gains of business or profession" and sets out specific categories of receipts to be treated as income for tax purposes. The Old Version enumerates paragraphs (a)-(e) describing receipts that will be taxable, conditions in sub-section (2), set-off mechanism in sub-section (3), treatment for successor in business in sub-section (4), applicability where business ceased in sub-section (5), and definitions in sub-section (6).

      Definitions/explanations provided in the Old Version: "sold" (includes transfer by exchange or compulsory acquisition but excludes certain amalgamation transfers); "successor in business" (lists amalgamated company, resulting company on demerger, any other person succeeding the assessee, and succeeding firm). No further definitions (for example, of "scrap value" or specific computation terms) are provided in the Old Version.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Old Version (Clause 38) applies to specified receipts deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and chargeable to income-tax. The categories (sub-section (1)) are:

      • (a) Recapture where an allowance/deduction was earlier allowed for a trading liability, loss or expenditure: (i) value of benefit from cessation or remission of the trading liability (including unilateral write-off in accounts) in the year benefit accrues; or (ii) any amount obtained (cash or otherwise) in respect of such loss or expenditure in the year obtained - whether the business/profession continues or not.
      • (b) On sale/discard/demolition/destruction of a tangible asset owned by the assessee where money payable plus scrap value [A] exceeds written down value [C]: computation in the year money becomes due - if money plus scrap value [A] is less than actual cost [B], then [A] - [C]; otherwise [B] - [C].
      • (c) On sale of an asset representing capital expenditure on scientific research (referred to in section 45(1)(a) or (c)) sold without having been used for other purposes, where sale proceeds plus total deductions allowed under that section exceed the capital expenditure - the excess or the amount of deduction so made, whichever is less, in the year asset sold.
      • (d) Where a deduction for a bad debt (or part) u/s 31(2) was allowed and any subsequent recovery exceeds the difference between such debt and the amount allowed - the excess in the year of recovery.
      • (e) Where a deduction was allowed for any special reserve u/s 32(e), any amount subsequently withdrawn from such reserve in the year of withdrawal.

      Sub-section (2) sets conditions for applicability: (a) applicability for (1)(a) only when allowance/deduction has been made in assessment for any earlier tax year towards the trading liability/loss/expenditure incurred; (b) for (1)(b) only when asset was used for business purpose and depreciation claimed and allowed u/s 33; (c) for (1)(c) only when assets have not been used for other purposes.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: the provision is one of recapture/anti-avoidance - to tax receipts that reverse or offset earlier deductions or allowances made by the taxpayer in computing business/professional income. The text signals a principle of matching tax consequences to economic reversal of earlier tax advantages. Specific interpretive principles: recapture is triggered where benefit accrues or amount is obtained; amount and timing are tied to year of accrual/receipt; particular treatment for successor entities and ceased businesses is provided.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs/conditions are limited to the conditions in sub-section (2) (as summarised above). No further exceptions or monetary thresholds are provided in the Old Version. Provisos such as exclusions on amalgamation transfers in sub-section (6)(a) are included for the meaning of "sold".

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (recapture on remission): A trader claimed and was allowed a deduction for a trading liability in year Y. In year Y+2 the creditor unilaterally writes off the liability in the trader's accounts and the trader enjoys a benefit by cessation of liability. Under clause 38(1)(a)(i), the value of that benefit is deemed business income in Y+2. (No numerical illustration given in the document.)
      • Example 2 (asset sale recapture): A tangible asset with actual cost [B], written down value [C], and scrap value [A] is sold in year Z. If money payable plus scrap value [A] exceeds [C], compute deemed income as [A] - [C] where [A] < [B], else [B] - [C], in year when money becomes due. (No numeric amounts provided in the document.)

      Interplay

      Interactions with other provisions: the Old Version expressly cross-references section 31(2) (bad debts), section 32(e) (special reserve), section 33 (depreciation), and section 45(1)(a) or (c) (capital nature expenditure on scientific research). No Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are mentioned in the Old Version. Further statutory cross-references are limited to the meanings given in sub-section (6). Any additional interplay with other provisions or tax code mechanisms is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Old Version (Clause 38 of the Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and As Passed (Section 38 of Income-tax Act, 2025):

      • Reference to section 33(12)(a)(i): As Passed, clause (b) explicitly cross-references "tangible asset [as referred to in section 33(12)(a)(i)]" and refers to "written down value of such assets [C]" and "scrap value [A]". Old Version uses a generic "tangible asset" and references "depreciation ... u/s 33" without the subsection citation.
        • Practical impact: As Passed narrows or clarifies the class of tangible assets contemplated (by specific cross-reference) and formalises terminology for components of the computation; this could affect whether certain assets qualify for the deemed income computation.
      • Sub-section (1)(c) research-asset cross-reference: Old Version refers to "section 45(1)(a) or (c)". As Passed refers to "section 45(1)(a)(i)".
        • Practical impact: Change of cross-reference narrows or alters the category of scientific research capital assets caught; may change which research assets are covered when sold.
      • Sub-section (2)(a) temporal wording: Old Version: deduction/allowance "has been made in assessment for any earlier tax year"; As Passed: "when an allowance or deduction has been made in assessment for any tax year towards the trading liability, loss or expenditure incurred".
        • Practical impact: As Passed removes the explicit "earlier" qualifier and expands wording to "any tax year" (but retains concept of allowance in assessment); this could broaden scope to include allowances in the same or earlier years (interpretation depends on other provisions), potentially increasing situations where recapture applies.
      • Sub-section (2)(b) condition: Old Version requires asset "has been used for the purpose of business, and depreciation has been claimed and allowed thereon u/s 33". As Passed requires use "for the purpose of business or profession, and depreciation has been claimed and allowed thereon u/s 33(2)".
        • Practical impact: As Passed explicitly includes "profession" (not only business) and cites section 33(2) specifically; a clarified narrower cross-reference may affect applicability where depreciation is governed by that subsection.
      • Sub-section (6)(b) wording for "successor in business": Old Version states '"successor in business" means and includes--' and lists items (ii)-(iv). As Passed states '"successor in business" means--' and lists similar items but omits the phrase "and includes" (minor drafting difference) and removes the word "includes".
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting; potential interpretive effect about whether the list is exhaustive versus illustrative - As Passed more strongly reads as exhaustive.
      • Minor drafting and numerical/cross-reference adjustments appear throughout (e.g., precise subsection citations for section 33 and section 45).
        • Practical impact: Clarificatory drafting may affect scope and interpretation; where As Passed provides a specific cross-reference it is likely more restrictive and precise than the Old Version.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: taxpayers who have claimed deductions/allowances for liabilities, bad debts, reserves, depreciation or scientific-research capital expenditures must monitor subsequent recoveries, remissions, sales or withdrawals, since such amounts may be taxable when the benefit accrues or proceeds are received.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: maintain contemporaneous records proving (i) assessment files showing the earlier allowance/deduction; (ii) dates and values of recoveries, write-offs, or remission; (iii) asset accounts showing cost, written down value, scrap value and depreciation claimed and allowed u/s 33; (iv) documentation for special reserves and withdrawals; and (v) documentation of successor-in-business transfers. These records are essential to determine timing and quantum of deemed income under the clause.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 38 of the Bill (Old Version) is a recapture provision taxing receipts that reverse earlier deductions/allowances in computing business/professional income.
      • It covers remission/cessation of liabilities (including unilateral write-offs), recoveries of previously deducted losses/expenditure, gains on disposal of tangible assets exceeding written down value, recoveries of bad debts, and withdrawals from specified reserves.
      • Conditions for applicability hinge on earlier allowance in assessment (for liabilities), prior use and depreciation claim for assets, and non-use for other purposes for research assets.
      • Successor entities on amalgamation/demerger or other succession are explicitly within scope for treating such receipts as the successor's income.
      • Differences between the Old Version and As Passed mainly reflect more specific cross-references, inclusion of "profession" in certain places, and tighter drafting that can narrow or clarify scope - these drafting changes may materially affect applicability in edge cases.

      Full Text:

      Section 38 Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax