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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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