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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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