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 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

Acts Income Tax