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
    Case LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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 49 "Site Restoration Fund" 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 49 Site Restoration Fund.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 49 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) creates a Site Restoration Fund framework allowing deductions for deposits by petroleum/natural gas prospectors/producers into specified accounts and prescribes tax treatment on withdrawal, transfer and on-sale of assets acquired under the scheme. It affects assessee-taxpayers engaged in petroleum/natural gas operations and the tax department. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 49 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) falls under Profits and gains of business or profession. The clause establishes a Site Restoration Fund mechanism for entities carrying on prospecting, extracting, or producing petroleum or natural gas in India who have an agreement with the Central Government. The clause provides for (a) deduction for deposits into a special account or the site restoration account computed as per Schedule X; (b) taxation on amounts withdrawn or transferred; and (c) a deeming provision for sale/transfer of assets acquired under the scheme within eight years. Definitions or further explanations are not provided in the clause itself; references are made to "the scheme" and "the deposit scheme" and to Schedule X for computation rules.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 49 covers three primary elements:

      • Eligible taxpayers: An assessee carrying on a business of prospecting, extracting, or producing petroleum or natural gas, or both, in India, who has an agreement with the Central Government for this business.

      • Deduction entitlement (Sub-section (1)): A deduction is allowed on deposits to a "special account" or the "site restoration account," computed in accordance with Schedule X.

      • Taxation on withdrawals/transfers (Sub-section (2)): Any amount withdrawn or transferred "at the time of closure or otherwise" shall be charged to tax in the year of transfer/withdrawal as per Schedule X.

      • Recapture on sale/transfer of assets (Sub-section (3)): If an asset acquired under "the scheme or the deposit scheme" is sold or transferred by the assessee to any person at any time before the expiry of eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired, that part of the cost of the asset "relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1)" is to be deemed profits and gains of business in the year of sale and taxed accordingly.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a common fiscal technique: allow tax relief for contributions to a restoration fund while providing rules to recapture that relief if the asset or the fund is diverted or realised within a specified holding period. The clause expressly ties computation and timing rules to Schedule X, indicating legislative intent to set detailed procedural and computational matter in the schedule. The eight-year holding period in Sub-section (3) is an explicit anti-abuse/time-based recapture rule.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (deposit and later withdrawal): An assessee deposits sums into the site restoration account and claims a deduction under Sub-section (1). If the assessee later withdraws funds from the account at closure, the withdrawn amount will be charged to tax in the year of withdrawal in accordance with Schedule X. (This is a direct reading; numerical computation method is Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2 (asset sale within eight years): An assessee acquires equipment using funds attributable to the deduction and sells the equipment within eight years. The portion of the equipment's cost "relatable to the deduction" will be deemed business income in the year of sale and taxed under Sub-section (3). (How to compute "such part of the cost" is Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly references Schedule X for computation and tax treatment details. The clause also indicates a relationship between "the scheme" and "the deposit scheme," but does not reference other statutes, rules, notifications, or circulars within its text. Specific inter-statutory interactions or implications for capital allowance regimes, transfer pricing, or accounting treatment are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 49 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version)

      • The Act version (Section 49(2)) expressly states that amounts withdrawn or transferred are from "the aforesaid accounts" (i.e., the special account or site restoration account). The Bill version omits the explicit source reference in Sub-section (2).
        • Practical impact: The Act clarifies that only amounts withdrawn from those specified accounts are taxed on withdrawal/transfer, reducing potential ambiguity about taxing unrelated withdrawals; the Bill left room for interpretive uncertainty.
      • Section 49(1) in the Act refers to deduction "on the basis of deposit to special account or site restoration account and computed as per the provisions of the Schedule X." The Bill used slightly different punctuation and included the phrase "the site restoration account."
        • Practical impact: Largely stylistic; both link computation and deduction to Schedule X. No substantive difference beyond form.
      • The Bill (Clause 49(3)) contains a specific deeming rule: if an asset acquired under "the scheme or the deposit scheme" is sold or transferred by the assessee within eight years from the end of the tax year of acquisition, then "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 taxed accordingly. The Act (Section 49(3)) removes the eight-year deeming language and instead states more generally that where any asset acquired as per the special scheme or deposit scheme (as referred to in Schedule X) is sold or otherwise transferred in any tax year, it "shall be charged to tax in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule."
        • Practical impact: The detailed deeming mechanism and explicit eight-year period in the Bill are replaced by delegation to Schedule X. This shifts substantive detail from the clause into Schedule X, possibly allowing for different timeframes, methods of recapture, or other tax consequences. The Act reduces prescriptive statutory mechanics at clause level and creates potential uncertainty until Schedule X is consulted. It also removes the explicit eight-year anti-abuse holding period that would have triggered immediate recapture under the Bill.
      • The Act explicitly uses "special scheme, or the deposit scheme, as referred to in Schedule X" whereas the Bill used "scheme or the deposit scheme."
        • Practical impact: The Act ties naming directly to Schedule X, suggesting a formal taxonomy of schemes to be defined there; otherwise, minimal substantive effect.
      • The Act centralises computation and recapture rules in Schedule X; the Bill contained at least one substantive recapture/deeming rule in the clause itself.
        • Practical impact: Users must consult Schedule X under the Act for substantive details; under the Bill some essential consequences were available in the clause itself. This changes where practitioners will look for operative rules and may affect transitional, interpretive and timing questions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear records evidencing deposits into the special/site restoration account and any subsequent withdrawals or transfers, and must track the acquisition date of assets purchased under the scheme to determine whether the eight-year recapture window applies. Calculation of the "part of the cost relatable to the deduction" is a material compliance issue; the clause presumes such computation but does not prescribe a method (computation rules are delegated to Schedule X or left unspecified in the clause).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Records should include the agreement with the Central Government (as the clause conditions entitlement on such an agreement), ledgers of deposits to the designated accounts, dates and amounts of withdrawals/transfers, invoices and asset acquisition documents specifying which assets were acquired "as per the scheme or the deposit scheme," and documentation supporting allocation of cost between deductible-funded and non-deductible portions. Specific documentary requirements are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 49 provides an express deduction for deposits to special/site restoration accounts for petroleum/natural gas undertakings with a Central Government agreement, with computation to follow Schedule X.
      • Withdrawals or transfers from the fund are taxed in the year of withdrawal/transfer under Schedule X rules.
      • There is an explicit eight-year recapture/deeming rule: sale/transfer of assets acquired under the scheme within eight years will result in portion of cost attributable to prior deduction being taxed as business income in the year of sale.
      • The clause leaves computational and procedural specifics to Schedule X; several operative details (calculation methodology, definitions of "scheme"/"deposit scheme", and effective date) are Not stated in the document.
      • Taxpayers must preserve documentation linking deposits to specific asset acquisitions and be prepared to demonstrate allocation if assets are disposed within eight years.

      Full Text:

      Section 49 Site Restoration Fund.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax