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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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 48 "Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account" 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 48 Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 48 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides for tax treatment of deposits into designated development accounts for tea, coffee and rubber and for recapture rules on withdrawal or disposal of assets acquired under the relevant schemes. It matters to taxpayers engaged in growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber in India, and to the tax department administering deductions and recapture. Effective dates or enactment timing are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 48 sits within the chapter on "Profits and gains of business or profession" in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - that is, it addresses deductible deposits and subsequent chargeability to tax for certain primary-sector activities. The clause ties deductibility and recapture to "the provisions of the Schedule IX" (repeatedly).

      The text provides limited definitional content: it identifies the relevant taxpayers as "an assessee ... carrying on business of growing and manufacturing tea or coffee or rubber in India" and references deposit accounts denominated as "tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account." No statutory definitions for "designated account", "scheme", "deposit scheme", or "Schedule IX" are reproduced in the document; therefore, the precise mechanics and definitions are dependent on Schedule IX and other parts of the Bill/Act.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause has three sub-sections. Sub-section (1) states that an assessee engaged in growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber in India "shall be allowed a deduction on the basis of deposits into the tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account and computed as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Sub-section (2) provides that any amount withdrawn, utilised or released "shall be charged to tax in the year in which the amount is transferred or withdrawn as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Sub-section (3) imposes a recapture rule when an asset acquired under the scheme is sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee before the expiry of eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired: "such part of the cost of such asset as is relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession of the tax year in which the asset is sold or otherwise transferred and shall accordingly be chargeable to income-tax as the income of that tax year."

      Interpretation

      The clause establishes a regime of initial tax relief (deduction for qualifying deposits) followed by a recapture mechanism to neutralise tax benefit where withdrawals occur or assets are disposed of within a specified protective period. Legislative intent, as inferable from the text, is to incentivise deposits into sector-specific development accounts while preventing permanent tax avoidance by recapturing benefit on early withdrawal or premature disposal of assets acquired using those amounts. The explicit eight-year recapture period in sub-section (3) signals a policy choice to protect the revenue over a medium-term horizon; the deeming formula targets that portion of asset cost that corresponds to prior deductions, thereby effectuating partial reversal of tax benefit rather than full clawback of proceeds.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any provisos, exceptions, exemptions, thresholds, or carve-outs beyond the three sub-sections reproduced. The clause itself contains no explicit provisos limiting application (for example, no treatment for transfers between related parties, no inflation adjustments, no apportionment rules beyond "such part of the cost ... as is relatable to the deduction"). Any further exceptions would need to be located in Schedule IX or elsewhere in the Bill.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee deposits funds into a "tea development account" and claims deduction computed under Schedule IX. If the assessee later withdraws those funds in a subsequent tax year, under Clause 48(2) the withdrawn amount is chargeable to tax in the tax year when the transfer/withdrawal occurs as per Schedule IX.

      • Example 2: An assessee uses deposited funds to acquire machinery under the scheme; if the machine is sold by the assessee within eight years from the end of the tax year of acquisition, the portion of the asset's cost that is attributable to the earlier deduction is "deemed to be the profits and gains" of the year of sale and taxed accordingly (i.e., recapture of benefit).

      • Example 3: Not stated in the document: how apportionment is to be calculated for part disposals, or treatment on sale to related parties; therefore specifics on such illustrations are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause repeatedly instructs that computation and chargeability are "as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Therefore, detailed operational rules, calculation formulae, timings, compliance processes and potentially definitions are deferred to Schedule IX. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the reproduced text. Interaction with general anti-avoidance provisions, transfer pricing provisions, or other parts of the tax code is Not stated in the document.

      Differences betweenSection 48of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 48 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Specified account nomenclature and breadth: The Bill (Clause 48) expressly names "tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account" as the basis for deduction; the enacted Section 48 refers more generically to "the special account or deposit account".
        • Practical impact: The Bill's language is more explicit about permitted account types and expressly contemplates additional "designated account(s)"; the Act's broader, less prescriptive phrasing may permit administrative flexibility but less clarity for taxpayers.
      • Timing of tax charge on withdrawals: Clause 48(2) (Bill) specifies that amounts "shall be charged to tax in the year in which the amount is transferred or withdrawn as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Section 48(2) (Act) states that amounts "withdrawn or utilised or released from the aforesaid accounts at the time of closure or otherwise shall be charged to tax as per the provisions of the Schedule IX" (no explicit year-of-withdrawal phrasing).
        • Practical impact: The Bill provides clearer timing (tax year of transfer/withdrawal); the Act's formulation defers to Schedule IX but is potentially less precise about timing, which could create interpretive uncertainty about whether charge arises at closure, at withdrawal, or u/rs in Schedule IX.
      • Recapture on disposal of assets: Clause 48(3) (Bill) contains a specific deeming provision: where an asset acquired under the scheme is sold/transferred within eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired, "such part of the cost of such asset as is relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession" of the year of sale and charged accordingly. Section 48(3) (Act) is shorter and states that where any asset acquired as per the special scheme or deposit scheme is sold or otherwise transferred in any tax year, it "shall be charged to tax in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule" (no eight-year period; no deeming of a relatable part of cost).
        • Practical impact: The Bill imposes a specific recapture window (8 years) and a deemed income mechanism that clearly recovers deductions previously claimed; the Act removes the explicit 8-year trigger and the specific deeming formula, deferring recapture mechanics to Schedule IX - potentially narrowing or broadening recapture depending on what Schedule IX specifies. Taxpayers face greater certainty under the Bill about recapture scope and timing, while the Act shifts the substantive rule into Schedule IX and may change the practical incidence of recapture.
      • Reference to "site restoration fund" and cross-purpose text: The Bill's explanatory note (as reproduced) mentions that Clauses 48 and 49 "provide for tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account and Site Restoration Fund..." The clause text itself is focused on tea/coffee/rubber accounts. The Act version omits any accompanying note.
      • Practical impact: The Bill situates Clause 48 in a broader legislative design that includes site restoration for extractive activities; the Act, as excerpted, is self-contained and lacks that contextual pointer.
      • Terminology differences ("special scheme"/"deposit scheme" vs "scheme"/"deposit scheme"): The Act uses "special scheme or the deposit scheme"; the Bill uses "scheme or the deposit scheme."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting variance; potential interpretive effect depends on definitions in the Bill/Act (not provided here).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaged in tea, coffee or rubber cultivation/manufacture who claim deductions under Clause 48 need to monitor withdrawals and the holding period of assets acquired under the scheme closely to determine recapture liabilities. The eight-year window imposes a medium-term compliance risk-early disposals create immediate tax charges under the deeming rule. The specific calculation of the "part of the cost ... relatable to the deduction" will be determinative; practitioners must consult Schedule IX for the precise methodology. Failure to follow the Schedule IX computation or to account for transfers/withdrawals in the year of event would expose taxpayers to assessments and interest/penalties (penalties/interest provisions Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The clause implies the need for contemporaneous and durable records of deposits into the designated accounts, documentary evidence of use of deposited funds to acquire particular assets, acquisition dates, asset cost breakdowns, and records of any transfer/withdrawal or sale including dates and consideration. Records should support apportionment between deductible-funded cost and other funding. Schedule IX likely prescribes precise evidentiary requirements; absent that text, taxpayers should maintain detailed books documenting the flow of funds between bank accounts, account ledgers for the designated accounts, asset registers linking assets to sources of finance, and sale/transfer documentation.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 48 establishes a conditional deduction for deposits into sector-specific development accounts for tea, coffee and rubber, with computation and operational detail delegated to Schedule IX.
      • Withdrawals or utilisations are taxable in the tax year of transfer/withdrawal in accordance with Schedule IX, creating timing certainty in the clause text (subject to Schedule IX specifics).
      • The clause contains an express eight-year recapture period for assets sold/transferred before expiry of that period, with a deeming rule targeting the portion of asset cost attributable to earlier deduction.
      • The clause does not provide detailed calculation, procedural, or exceptions language within the text; those details are left to Schedule IX and other parts of the Bill/Act.
      • Taxpayers must maintain records linking deposits to account entries and to assets acquired, and should anticipate recapture on early dispositions; specific compliance steps and penalties are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 48 Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax