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 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