Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of Section 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

Acts Income Tax