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 LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 53 "Full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      28 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 53 Full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 53 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), prescribing deeming provisions for the "full value of consideration" where transfer of assets other than capital assets (specifically land or building or both) is at a value below the stamp duty value. It matters because it changes the taxable measure for profits and gains of business or profession where undervaluation vis-`a-vis stamp duty arises. The provision affects taxpayers engaged in sale/transfer of land and buildings, tax authorities assessing business income, and industries dealing in real estate. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 53, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), addressing "Full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases" under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." The provision applies to transfers of assets other than capital assets where the asset in question is land or building or both. The clause sets out rules to deem the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration for computing profits and gains where the consideration received or accrued is less than the stamp duty value.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause contains five sub-sections:

      • Sub-section (1): If consideration received or accrued for transfer of an asset (other than a capital asset) being land or building or both is less than the stamp duty, the stamp duty value shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration for computing profits and gains from transfer of such asset.

      • Sub-section (2): Sub-section (1) does not apply if the stamp duty value does not exceed 110% of the consideration received or accrued; in that case, the actual consideration received or accrued shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration.

      • Sub-section (3): Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration and the date of registration are different, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement may be taken as the full value of consideration under sub-section (1).

      • Sub-section (4): Sub-section (3) applies only where the amount of consideration or part thereof has been received by specified banking or online mode on or before the date of agreement.

      • Sub-section (5): For determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1), the provisions of section 78(2) and (4) shall apply.

      Coverage is limited to non-capital assets, specifically land and/or buildings. The clause does not define "stamp duty" or "stamp duty value" within the text provided. It does not specify procedures for valuation beyond cross-reference to section 78(2) and (4).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as discernible from the text: the legislature aims to prevent understatement of consideration in transactions of land/buildings by enabling tax computation to adopt the stamp duty valuation where declared consideration is lower than stamp duty benchmarks. The 110% threshold in sub-section (2) establishes a tolerance band where small variances do not trigger deeming. Sub-sections (3) and (4) indicate a deliberate rule allowing stamp duty value as on agreement date to be used-subject to actual receipt of consideration (or part) through specified banking/online modes-thereby linking electronic/payment evidence to the ability to rely on agreement-date stamp valuation.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions are set out:

      • The deeming in sub-section (1) is not operative where stamp duty value <= 110% of consideration received/accrued (sub-section (2)).
      • Use of stamp duty value as of agreement date is permitted only when the agreement date differs from registration date (sub-section (3)), and only where consideration or part of it has been received by specified banking/online mode on or before agreement date (sub-section (4)).
      • Determination of the value for adoption under sub-section (1) is governed by section 78(2) and (4) (sub-section (5)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer transfers a plot of land in the course of business. Consideration received is Rs. 90 lakh. Stamp duty value recorded is Rs. 1.2 crore. Under sub-section (1), because consideration < stamp duty, stamp duty value (Rs. 1.2 crore) is deemed full value of consideration for computing profits, unless barred by sub-section (2). Apply sub-section (2): stamp duty value (Rs.1.2 crore) exceeds 110% of consideration (110% of 90 lakh = 99 lakh). Hence deeming applies and Rs.1.2 crore is treated as full value. (This illustration is a hypothetical calculation consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: Consideration Rs. 95 lakh; stamp duty value Rs. 1.02 crore. 110% of consideration = Rs. 1.045 crore. Since stamp duty value (Rs. 1.02 crore) does not exceed 110% of consideration, sub-section (2) applies and actual consideration (Rs. 95 lakh) is deemed full value. (Hypothetical calculation consistent with the text.)
      • Example 3: Agreement dated 1 Jan; registration 1 Mar. Stamp duty value as on agreement date is Rs. X. If part of consideration was paid through specified banking/online mode on or before 1 Jan, then per sub-sections (3) and (4) stamp duty value as on agreement date may be taken as full value under sub-section (1). (Hypothetical consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      Sub-section (5) expressly incorporates the provisions of section 78(2) and (4) for determination of the value "adopted or assessed or assessable" under sub-section (1). The text does not reproduce section 78; therefore, the mechanics and criteria in section 78 are not stated in the document. Not stated in the document: whether other provisions, rules, notifications, or circulars interact with Clause 53, or any transitional arrangements.

      Differences Between Clause 53 (Old Bill) and Section 53 (Act, 2025) and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 53 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)Section 53 of the Income-tax Act, 2025
      Text of sub-section (1)Deems stamp duty value as full value where consideration received or accrued is less than the stamp duty.Deems stamp duty value as full value where consideration received or accrued is less than the stamp duty value.
      Sub-section (2) - 110% thresholdSame: carve-out where stamp duty value does not exceed 110% of consideration; actual consideration deemed full value.Same language and effect.
      Sub-section (3) - agreement vs registration dateStamp duty value as on date of agreement may be taken as full value where dates differ.Same: allows stamp duty value as on agreement date to be taken as full value.
      Sub-section (4) - payment mode conditionApplies only where amount or part is received by specified banking/online mode on or before date of agreement.Same condition in substance: amount or part received by specified banking/online mode on or before agreement date required.
      Sub-section (5) - cross-reference to section 78Refers to "section 78(2) and (4)" for determination of value adopted/assessed/assessable under sub-section (1).Refers to "section 78(2) and (3)" for determination of the stamp duty value under sub-section (1).

      Practical impact of the difference: The only textual difference in the two versions provided concerns the cross-reference in sub-section (5). The Bill's old version cross-references section 78(2) and (4), whereas the enacted Section 53 cross-references section 78(2) and (3). The practical impact depends entirely on the substantive content of section 78(3) versus section 78(4)-which are not reproduced in the provided documents. Therefore, specific consequences cannot be ascertained from the text given. Not stated in the document: the substantive differences between section 78(3) and section 78(4), and how they affect valuation methodology or procedural outcomes. In consequence, the only observable immediate effect is that the enacted text narrows or alters the cross-referential provisions that govern determination of stamp duty value compared with the Bill; the precise legal and practical significance of that alteration is not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers selling/transfering land/buildings in the course of business must be aware that declared consideration below stamp duty value may be ignored and stamp duty value adopted for profit computation, increasing taxable income. Reliance on the 110% tolerance is critical where stamp duty value is close to consideration; precise calculation is necessary to determine applicability.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Sub-section (4) conditions use of agreement-date stamp duty value on proof of receipt (in part or whole) by specified banking/online modes on or before the agreement date-thus documentary evidence of payments and their mode, as well as dating of receipts and agreements, will be relevant. The clause implicitly places evidential importance on banking/online payment records and dated agreements.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 53 deems stamp duty value to be full value of consideration for non-capital land/building transfers where declared consideration is lower than stamp duty value (sub-section (1)).
      • A safeguard exists: if stamp duty value does not exceed 110% of declared consideration, the actual consideration stands as full value (sub-section (2)).
      • Where agreement and registration dates differ, stamp duty value as on agreement date may be used, but only if payment (or part) was received by specified banking/online mode on or before agreement date (sub-sections (3)-(4)).
      • The method for determining the value for adoption refers to section 78(2) and (4); the clause does not state the content of those provisions (sub-section (5)).
      • Documentary proof of payment modes and dated agreements will be important for taxpayers wishing to rely on agreement-date valuations.
      • The clause applies to non-capital assets only, limited to land and/or buildings; it does not address transfers of capital assets within this text.
      • Not stated in the document: effective date, transitional rules, administrative procedures, and detailed interaction with other statutory provisions beyond section 78(2) and (4).

      Full Text:

      Section 53 Full value of consideration for transfer of assets other than capital assets in certain cases.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax