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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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