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 66 "Interpretation" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

29 August, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 66 Interpretation.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - interpretative definitions for sections 26-66 dealing with "Profits and gains of business or profession". It matters because these definitions determine the scope and application of multiple substantive provisions in Chapter IV-D; affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business or profession, financial institutions, exchanges, and certain classes of enterprises.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides interpretive definitions for terms used "In sections 26 to 66" of the Bill, dealing with Profits and gains of business or profession. It contains a catalogue of defined expressions - including "agreement", "banking company", "commission or brokerage", "commodity derivative", "commodities transaction tax", "fees for technical services", "housing finance company", "Indian Institute of Technology", "Keyman insurance policy", "limited liability partnership", "long-term finance", "micro enterprise", "mineral oil", "moneys payable", "National Housing Bank", "non-scheduled bank", "paid", "permanent establishment", "plant", "predecessor entity", "primary agricultural credit society", "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank", "professional services", "public company", "public financial institution", "rate of exchange", "recognised commodity exchange", "rent" (for s.35(b)(i)), "royalty", "rural branch", "scientific research", "securities transaction tax", "service" (for s.26(2)(h)), "small enterprise", "speculative transaction", "Specified Banking or Online Mode", "specified derivative transaction", "State Government undertaking", "State Industrial Investment Corporation", "State Financial Corporation", "successor entity", "taxable commodities transaction", "taxable securities transaction", "University" and "work" (for s.35(b)(i)).

Interpretation

The text primarily assigns meanings by cross-reference to other statutes (e.g., Banking Regulation Act, Companies Act, Finance Acts) or by descriptive definition. Legislative intent, as discernible from the text, is to standardise terminology used across the chapters and to reduce ambiguity by aligning tax definitions with sectoral statutes and financial legislation. The Bill uses inclusive definitions (e.g., "includes any arrangement... whether or not ... formal or in writing") to capture informal commercial arrangements within tax net. The "specified derivative transaction" and "speculative transaction" definitions use functional tests (electronic trading, contract settlement mechanics) to delineate tax treatment boundaries.

Exceptions/Provisos

Where the Bill carves out exceptions, it does so within particular definitions. For example, "speculative transaction" excludes (a) specified derivative transactions; (b) certain hedging contracts in the course of manufacturing/merchandising; (c) contracts by dealers/investors in stocks/shares for hedging; and (d) forward-market or stock-exchange member transactions in jobbing/arbitrage. These subclauses act as express carve-outs to prevent ordinary commercial hedging or certain exchange activities from being treated as speculative for tax purposes. No general provisos outside definition-specific qualifiers are present. Other conditional definitions (e.g., "long-term finance" requiring repayment terms of not less than five years) set clear thresholds.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A loan with a repayment schedule of six years qualifies as "long-term finance" for s.32(e) under the Bill, because repayment with interest occurs over a period not less than five years. Not stated in the document whether interest-only or bullet repayments have any effect.

  • Example 2: A contract for forward purchase of raw materials by a manufacturer to hedge price risk is carved out from "speculative transaction" and therefore will not be treated as speculative under the Bill. Not stated in the document how documentation must be maintained to evidence the hedging purpose.

  • Example 3: Trading in derivatives carried out electronically on a recognised commodity exchange and supported by a time-stamped contract note with UCI and PAN would meet the clause's requirement for a "specified derivative transaction". Not stated in the document whether off-exchange bilateral derivatives cleared through a recognised clearing corporation are covered.

Interplay

The Bill explicitly cross-references multiple fora of subordinate and other primary legislation - e.g., the Banking Regulation Act, Companies Act, Finance Act(s), the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, SEBI Act and the Depositories Act. This signals intended interoperability: tax definitions are to be interpreted in light of sectoral legislation. The Bill relies on prescribed conditions and notifications (e.g., "recognised commodity exchange" to be notified and to fulfil conditions "as prescribed"). Interaction with rules and notifications is anticipated but the Bill often leaves specifics to delegated law (prescription/notification).

Differences between Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

  • Scope language: Section 66 applies "For the purposes of Part D of this Chapter" (i.e., Chapter IV-D), whereas Clause 66 (Old Version) states "In sections 26 to 66," - a broader textual hook in the Bill version. 
    • Practical impact: potential difference in statutory application scope - the Act text narrows the interpretive provisions to Part D explicitly; the Bill text suggests definitions apply across sections 26-66. This narrows or widens reach depending on the cross-references in the surrounding code.
  • Terminology difference - "commodity derivative" vs "commodities transaction": The Bill (Old) at clause (4) defines "commodity derivative" (as in Finance Act) while the Act (Section 66) replaces that item with a clause (4) defining "commodities transaction tax" and retains a later clause for "specified derivative transaction" with a different structure.
    • Practical impact: change in focus from defining the derivative instrument to defining the tax/transaction type; may affect which term governs specific tax computations and interpretive cross-references.
  • National Housing Bank: Clause 66 (Old) contains a specific definition of "National Housing Bank" at clause (15). Section 66 (Act) omits that definition and instead includes "banking company" definition at (2) and "State Financial Corporation" related items; it includes "Keyman insurance policy" and other items.
    • Practical impact: removal of express "National Housing Bank" definition in the enacted provision could affect application of provisions where that entity was singled out in the Bill; reliance would shift to general definitions or other provisions.
  • Micro/small enterprise cross-references: Clause 66 (Old) defines "micro enterprise" as assigned in section 2(h) of the MSME Act and "small enterprise" as in section 2(m). Section 66 (Act) instead states both "micro enterprise" and "small enterprise" shall be "classified as such under the notification in this behalf by the Central Government under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006."
    • Practical impact: Act moves from direct cross-reference to specific statutory subsections to a reference to notification-based classification; this grants greater administrative flexibility and ties the definition to executive notifications rather than to fixed statutory clause numbers.
  • Terminology and numbering changes for derivative/speculative definitions: The Bill's "specified derivative transaction" definition (clause (37)) is structured as three conjunctive requirements (electronic on recognised exchanges; carried out by bank/mutual fund/other through intermediary; supported by time-stamped contract note). The Act's corresponding clause (33) sets out a different two-part formulation and explicitly includes trading in commodity derivatives chargeable to commodities transaction tax or trading in agricultural commodity derivatives subject to specified conditions, and provides alternative carrying-out methods (through stock broker/intermediary or by banks or mutual funds electronically).
    • Practical impact: Act broadens or alters the qualifying modes of specified derivatives and the entities that may carry them out; this may affect the classification of transactions for taxability and compliance (contract-note requirements remain but text differs).
  • Inclusion/omission of successor/predecessor/succession of sole proprietorship: Clause 66 (Old) at predecessor entity includes an extra clause (e) for "sole proprietary concern" succession (70(1)(zf)); Section 66 (Act) predecessor entity omits that (no clause (e) under predecessor) but successor entity in Section 66 includes conversion to LLP etc.
    • Practical impact: divergence as to whether succession of sole proprietorship by a company is captured in predecessor/successor definitions; could affect tax continuity provisions on succession and carry-overs.
  • "Recognised commodity exchange" appears in the Bill (Old) (clause (27)) but is absent from the enacted Section 66.
    • Practical impact: removal may require reliance on other definitions or create ambiguity where the Bill relied on this term; stakeholders in commodity derivatives may need to seek alternative statutory anchors.
  • Placement and wording of "service" for section 26(2)(h): Both texts define "service" with an illustrative list. The list is substantially the same but the Act positions this at clause (29) and the Bill at (33).
    • Practical impact: principally drafting/numbering; substantively similar.
  • Minor reordering and rewording: Many items are present in both texts but with changed numbering, slightly different cross-references (e.g., references to Finance (No. 2) Act numbering), and occasional substitutions (e.g., "commodity derivative" v. "commodities transaction tax").
    • Practical impact: requires careful cross-referencing in tax opinions and compliance documents; numbering changes may affect citations in subordinate rules, circulars, and litigation if not harmonised.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaging in derivative trading or commodity transactions must ensure trading occurs through prescribed channels (recognised exchanges/intermediaries) and maintain time-stamped contract notes with UCI and PAN details to satisfy the "specified derivative transaction" criteria. Failure to satisfy documentary or platform conditions risks reclassification as speculative or non-specified, altering tax treatment.
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The Bill emphasises documentary support (time-stamped contract notes, unique client identity numbers, PAN), and in carve-outs (e.g., hedging for manufacturers) suggests that contemporaneous evidence of commercial purpose will be material. Not stated in the document are retention periods or formats for such records; those will be governed by other provisions or rules.

Key Takeaways

  • The Bill centralises and aligns tax definitions with sectoral statutes and marketplace practices, using cross-references to existing Acts and requiring prescribed/platform-based conditions for derivative classification.
  • Definitions include inclusive language to capture informal arrangements (e.g., "agreement" includes arrangements not in writing or legally enforceable), broadening tax net for certain anti-avoidance contexts.
  • Specified thresholds and documentary requirements (e.g., repayment period of five years, time-stamped contract notes with UCI and PAN) create clear compliance triggers; absence of these may change tax characterisation.
  • Several terms are left to notification/prescription (e.g., "recognised commodity exchange", "Specified Banking or Online Mode"), indicating reliance on delegated legislation for operational clarity.
  • Carve-outs for legitimate commercial hedging and exchange-related activities reduce the risk of routine business transactions being taxed as speculative, but evidentiary burden is implied.

Full Text:

Section 66 Interpretation.

Topics

Acts Income Tax