Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

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

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of Section 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

Acts Income Tax