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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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