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 46 "Capital expenditure of specified business" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      26 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 46 Capital expenditure of specified business.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 46 (old version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 is the proposed provision for immediate deduction of capital expenditure incurred for specified businesses. It sets out eligibility conditions, anti-avoidance safeguards, a list of qualifying businesses with effective commencement dates, and restrictions on subsequent use and alternative deductions. This provision primarily affects taxpayers carrying on the listed specified businesses, and interacts with other deduction provisions and procedural sections (as cross-referenced). Effective dates for different businesses are specified in the Table.

      Background & Scope

      This clause is framed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and proposes a statutory allowance for the entire capital expenditure incurred "wholly and exclusively" for specified businesses in the tax year in which such expenditure is incurred (sub-sections (1) and (2)). The clause covers pre-commencement capitalisation (allowed in the year of commencement) and enumerates conditions to curb misuse (sub-section (3)). Definitions relevant to the clause are provided in sub-section (11), including "associated person", "cold chain facility", "infrastructure facility" (by reference to the Explanation to section 80-IA(4)), and a detailed list of "specified business" activities. The clause also prescribes restrictions on claiming other deductions and sets usage and recapture provisions (sub-sections (4)-(10)).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The clause permits an assessee, at his option, to claim a deduction of the whole capital expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for purposes of any specified business during the tax year in which the expenditure is incurred (sub-section (1)). If such expenditure is incurred before commencement and capitalised in books as on commencement date, the deduction is allowed in the tax year business commences (sub-section (2)).

      Scope: Applies only to businesses listed as "specified business" in sub-section (11)(d) and subject to conditions in sub-section (3). A table (sub-section (6)) prescribes specific commencement dates for applicability across different business types.

      Interpretation

      The text contemplates a liberal timing rule for capital expenditure - immediate full deduction - but tempers it with conditions to prevent splitting/reconstruction and transfers of previously used machinery. Where specified, ownership and approvals (e.g., regulatory board notifications/approvals) are prerequisites. The provision authorises recapture where assets cease to be used for the specified business within eight years. The reference to "at his option" indicates a taxpayer elective regime (taxpayer may choose to claim the deduction in the relevant year).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions:

      • Not applicable if business is set up by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business (sub-section (3)(a)).
      • Not applicable to businesses set up by transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose (sub-section (3)(b)), with a limited de minimis exception if transferred machinery value does not exceed 20% of total (sub-section (11)(f)).
      • For certain pipeline businesses and infrastructure projects, additional ownership, approval and common-carrier capacity conditions apply (sub-section (3)(c) and (d)).
      • Where deduction under sub-section (1) is claimed and allowed, no deduction shall be allowed u/s 144 and Chapter VIII-C for the same or any other tax year (sub-section (4)).
      • Assets on which deduction is claimed must be used solely for the specified business for eight years; if used otherwise (and not chargeable u/s 26(2)(k)), recapture makes the earlier deductions taxable after reducing allowed depreciation (sub-section (9)).
      • Expenditure by cash above ten thousand rupees in a day (unless through specified banking or online mode) and acquisition of land, goodwill or financial instruments are excluded from "expenditure of capital nature" for this purpose (sub-section (11)(g)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company sets up a new hotel (two-star or above) commencing operations on 1st April, 2011 and incurs capital expenditure wholly and exclusively for the hotel in that tax year. If conditions in sub-section (3) are met, the company may, at its option, claim full deduction of that capital expenditure in the tax year of incurrence (or where pre-commencement and capitalised, in year of commencement). (Consistent with sub-sections (1), (2), and Table entry 2.)

      • Example 2: An assessee imports a plant that was never used in India and claims capital expenditure deduction for setting up a wafer fabrication unit notified by the Board. Provided no depreciation had been allowed previously for that plant and other conditions are satisfied, the machinery will not be treated as "previously used" for the purpose of sub-section (3)(b) (sub-section (11)(e)).

      • Example 3: A taxpayer claims deduction under sub-section (1) for a sugar warehousing facility, then uses the asset for a different non-specified purpose in year 5. If the alternative use is not chargeable u/s 26(2)(k), recapture rules in sub-section (9)(b) make earlier deductions taxable after adjusting depreciation as if no deduction under this section was allowed.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly displaces certain other deductions for the same expenditure (section 144 and Chapter VIII-C). It ties the definition of "infrastructure facility" to section 80-IA(4) Explanation, thereby importing interpretative linkages with that provision. Procedural or evidentiary measures "so far as may be" apply from other sections (122(6); 138(18) and (23) as per the Bill), creating procedural interplay. The recapture mechanism refers to section 33 (depreciation computation) and section 26(2)(k) (chargeability of income), indicating cross-references to general tax provisions for computation and chargeability.

      Differences Between Section 46 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 46 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (old version)

      • Clause (4) - Cross-reference to other deductions: Document 1 (Act) excludes only Chapter VIII-C if deduction under sub-section (1) is claimed and allowed; Document 2 (Bill, old) excludes both section 144 and Chapter VIII-C.
        • Practical impact: The Bill would have blocked a further specific deduction u/s 144 (if applicable) in addition to Chapter VIII-C; the enacted Act narrows the prohibition, potentially allowing relief u/s 144 where otherwise barred under the Bill.
      • Section cross-references in sub-section (8): Document 1 (Act) refers to the provisions contained in sections 122(6) and 140(8) and (13); Document 2 (Bill, old) refers to sections 122(6) and 138(18) and (23).
        • Practical impact: Different procedural or evidentiary provisions would apply depending on which sections are referenced; the change in numbering alters the procedural regime said to apply "so far as may be" to this section. The practical effect depends on substantive content of the referenced sections (not reproduced here).
      • Definition of "infrastructure facility": Document 1 supplies an explicit list (roads, highways, water projects, ports, airports, etc.). Document 2 adopts the meaning assigned in the Explanation to section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
        • Practical impact: The Bill ties the definition to an external, possibly broader or differently worded, statutory explanation; this may create reliance on section 80-IA(4) jurisprudence and any changes thereto, producing potential interpretive divergence from a self-contained list.
      • Table entries - notification/guidelines wording: Several entries differ in phrasing. Document 1 uses "notified by the Board in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines as may be prescribed" or "which is notified by the Board in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines as may be prescribed"; Document 2 uses variants such as "as notified by the Board, as per the guidelines as notified by the Board" or "as per the guidelines notified by the Board."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting differences likely intended to clarify who notifies and whose guidelines apply; in practice they may change administrative steps for notification or guidance but are largely textual refinements.
      • Semiconductor entry wording: Document 1: "which is notified by the Board in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines as may be prescribed." Document 2: "as notified by the Board, and as per such guidelines as notified by the Board."
        • Practical impact: Document 2 explicitly references both notification and guidelines as notified by the Board; effect is administrative - centralises authority with the Board for both notification and guidelines.
      • Wording of sub-section (3) introductory phrase: Document 1: "fulfilling all of the following conditions:-" Document 2: "fulfilling the following conditions:-"
        • Practical impact: Purely stylistic with no substantive effect apparent from the texts provided.
      • Minor drafting differences (numerical expression): Document 1 states the monetary threshold as "Rs. 10000 rupees"; Document 2 states "ten thousand rupees" (and in one place "ten thousand rupees" spelled out).
        • Practical impact: No substantive difference; only drafting form.
      • Sub-section (9)(b) wording: Document 1 states the proviso shall be "deemed to be the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' of the tax year" whereas Document 2 omits the phrase "shall be deemed to be" and states "shall be the income chargeable under the head..."
        • Practical impact: Largely stylistic; both produce the same legal outcome that the recaptured amount is taxable under business income.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure the business is not a reconstruction or splitting of an existing enterprise and that machinery previously used is not transferred to the specified business (with the 20% de minimis exception). Where regulatory approvals or Board notifications/guidelines are prerequisites (e.g., pipelines, semiconductor units), taxpayers must maintain documentary evidence of ownership, approvals, notifications and common-carrier capacity commitments where applicable.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Capital expenditure capitalised pre-commencement must be reflected in books at commencement date; records of specified banking/online mode payments for capital items to satisfy sub-section (11)(g)(i) are necessary; agreements with government/statutory bodies and Board approvals should be retained; evidence to show continuous use for eight years (or exceptions) is required to avoid recapture.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 46 (old Bill) permits an elective full immediate deduction of capital expenditure for enumerated specified businesses, subject to conditions.
      • Eligibility is constrained by anti-avoidance thresholds: no splitting/reconstruction, no transfer of previously used machinery (except limited 20% exception), and procedural/ownership/approval requirements for certain sectors.
      • Where claimed, the deduction excludes certain other statutory deductions (explicitly section 144 and Chapter VIII-C) for the same expenditure.
      • Assets benefiting from the deduction must be used solely for the specified business for eight years; otherwise recapture applies, computed after reducing allowable depreciation.
      • Definitions are partly self-contained and partly by reference (notably "infrastructure facility" linked to section 80-IA(4) Explanation), creating interpretive dependencies.
      • Cash payment limits and exclusions (land, goodwill, financial instruments) narrow the scope of capital expenditure eligible for immediate deduction.
      • Taxpayers must maintain robust documentary evidence of approvals, notifications, bank/online payments, ownership and continuous use to substantiate claims and avoid recapture.

       


      Full Text:

      Section 46 Capital expenditure of specified business.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax