Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 72 "Mode of computation of capital gains" 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 72 Mode of computation of capital gains.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 72 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the mode of computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital gains". It sets out deductible items from the full value of consideration, treatment of indexation, exclusions from deduction, special rules for units of business trusts, specified-person transactions, and certain rules for non-residents. The provision affects taxpayers disposing of capital assets, non-resident investors in Indian securities, business trust unit-holders and specified entities. Effective/commencement date: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 72 (Mode of computation of capital gains) prescribes the manner in which income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" is to be computed. It applies to transfers of capital assets and sets out the deductions allowable from the "full value of the consideration" received or accruing as a result of such transfer. The text is structured in eight sub-sections addressing allowable deductions, indexation in prescribed cases, non-allowable deductions, treatment in relation to business trust distributions, specified person/entity transactions, computation for non-residents dealing in Indian company shares/debentures, treatment of gains from rupee appreciation on rupee-denominated bonds, and definitions including Cost Inflation Index and indexed costs.

      Interpretation

      The provision implements a deductive arithmetic model: capital gains = full value of consideration less specified deductions. Sub-section 72(1) specifies two primary deductible heads - (a) expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the transfer; (b) cost of acquisition and cost of any improvement. Sub-section 72(2) provides that, in prescribed cases, these cost heads shall be treated as their "indexed" equivalents - effectively allowing inflation adjustment where applicable. The legislative intent, as manifested in the text, is to preserve indexation relief in circumstances specified by the executive (prescription), while retaining a base rule for allowable deductions. The text does not state legislative policy beyond these mechanics. Not stated in the document: any parliamentary statements or objectives beyond the literal drafting.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The section contains express exclusions and special rules:

      • Sub-s.72(3) excludes from deduction: (a) interest claimed under s.22(1)(b) or under Chapter VIII; and (b) securities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. These amounts cannot be deducted while computing capital gains.
      • Sub-s.72(4) creates a special cost-adjustment rule for unit holders receiving non-income amounts from business trusts (Schedule V items). Such amounts are to be reduced from the cost of acquisition; if the transfer is not treated as transfer under s.70 and cost determined under s.73, amounts received before and after such transaction shall be reduced from cost of acquisition.
      • Sub-s.72(5) allows a specified entity (as per s.67(10)) to claim a prescribed deduction attributable to the transfer of a capital asset - entitlement language is present (the entity "is entitled").
      • Sub-s.72(6)-(7) impose special computation rules for non-residents dealing in shares/debentures and rupee-denominated bonds - conversion into the same foreign currency used at acquisition and reconversion after computing gains; gains due to rupee appreciation on rupee bonds are to be ignored for computing full value of consideration.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An Indian resident transfers a capital asset for consideration X. From X, the taxpayer deducts expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred on the transfer and the cost of acquisition and improvements (or indexed equivalents in prescribed cases). Not stated in the document: numeric values or procedural forms to be used for claiming these deductions.
      • Example 2: A non-resident who purchased debentures in foreign currency converts both acquisition cost and sale consideration into that foreign currency for computation of capital gain, then reconverts the computed gain into Indian rupees for tax purposes. Not stated in the document: the specific rate of exchange to be used (prescription assumed; Document 2 lacks the explicit exchange-rate clause present in the enacted Act).

      Interplay

      The section refers to multiple other provisions and enactments: s.22(1)(b), Chapter VIII, Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, s.70, s.73, s.67(10), Schedule V, s.198 and s.197(3). The provision anticipates implementing rules ("as prescribed") for indexation cases and for calculation in relation to specified entities and currency conversion. The Bill text itself does not specify the implementing rules or the precise interaction mechanics; those are left to prescription. Not stated in the document: details of the implementing rules, notification references, or cross-statutory amendments required for coherent interplay.

      Comparative Differences and Practical Impact

      Documents compared: Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and Clause 72 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (Document 2).

      • Placement and Drafting Context: Document 1 is presented as Section 72 of the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025; Document 2 is the old version of Clause 72 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025.
        • Practical impact: the Act text (Document 1) represents final statutory language; the Bill text (Document 2) is an earlier proposal and may differ in specific drafting and operative details.
      • Sub-section (2) - Trigger for Indexation: Document 1 (Act) states in s.72(2): "For the purposes of item B of the formula in section 197(3), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect as if for the words 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of any improvement', the words 'indexed cost of acquisition' and 'indexed cost of any improvement' had respectively been substituted." Document 2 (Bill) states s.72(2): "In cases, as prescribed, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect as if for the words 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of any improvement', the words 'indexed cost of acquisition' and 'indexed cost of any improvement' had respectively been substituted."
        • Practical impact: the Bill conditions indexation by reference to prescribed cases, whereas the Act text ties indexation specifically to item B of the formula in s.197(3). That narrows and clarifies the operative context in the Act, reducing administrative discretion to prescribe unspecified cases and aligning indexation to a named formula item; this may limit application of indexation to particular computational contexts and reduce uncertainty for taxpayers and administrators.
      • Sub-section (4) Wording Minor Differences: Both texts contain s.72(4) about unit holders and business trusts with substantially similar wording.
        • Practical impact: none material-substantive parity retained.
      • Sub-section (5) - Entitlement Language: Document 1 (Act) s.72(5) reads: "the specified entity, in addition to deductions under sub-section (1), shall also be entitled to a deduction calculated in such manner, as may be prescribed..." Document 2 (Bill) s.72(5) reads: "the specified entity is entitled to a deduction calculated in such manner, as prescribed..."
        • Practical impact: the Act text explicitly states the deduction is "in addition to deductions under sub-section (1)", which clarifies aggregation of deductions; the Bill language is less explicit on aggregation. The Act's clarification reduces interpretive ambiguity concerning whether the prescribed deduction is separate from subsection (1) deductions.
      • Sub-section (6) & (7) - Wording on Non-residents and Rupee-denominated bonds: Both texts substantially align, though Document 1 uses slightly different punctuation and insertion of "wholly and exclusively" in sub-s.6(a) of the Act; Document 2 has "expenditure incurred, wholly and exclusively, in connection..."
        • Practical impact: no material change in substance.
      • Sub-section (8) - Definitions/Prescriptions: Document 1 contains an expanded s.72(8) with four clauses (a)-(d). It defines "Cost Inflation Index" and provides specific formulae for indexed costs (b) and (c), and clause (d) prescribes conversion rates for currency conversion. Document 2 contains three clauses (a)-(c) only, defining Cost Inflation Index and indexed costs but omitting any clause equivalent to Document 1's (d) on rates of exchange.
        • Practical impact: the Act adds express provision (s.72(8)(d)) prescribing the rate of exchange for conversion/reconversion of currency; this closes a lacuna in the Bill that would have left exchange rate prescription uncertain and dependent solely on separate rules or regulations. Inclusion in the Act provides statutory authority for the exchange rate mechanism tied to computation in sub-s.6 and improves clarity for non-residents.
      • Terminology and Minor Drafting Differences: There are slight variations in punctuation, ordering of words ("for the purpose of computing" vs "for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration"), and small wording differences in s.72(7) on computation of full value of consideration.
        • Practical impact: largely drafting; no substantive shifts beyond those noted above.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: taxpayers must maintain contemporaneous records of acquisition cost and cost of improvements, and of expenditures wholly and exclusively incurred for the transfer. For non-residents, records showing the foreign currency initially used for acquisition are essential to apply the conversion rule in s.72(6).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: the text implies the need for documentary evidence of expenditures on transfer, invoices for improvements, receipts of distributions from business trusts (to adjust cost of acquisition), and documentation of initial purchase currency for foreign purchasers. Not stated in the document: retention periods or prescribed formats for such records.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 72 prescribes the basic arithmetic for computing capital gains: full value of consideration less specified deductions.
      • Indexation of acquisition and improvement costs applies only "in cases, as prescribed" under the Bill; the enacted Act narrows indexation to a specific formula context (item B of s.197(3)).
      • Certain amounts (specified interest and securities transaction tax) are explicitly non-deductible.
      • Special rules adjust cost of acquisition for amounts received from business trusts and provide prescribed deductions for specified entities receiving value under s.67(10).
      • Non-residents dealing with Indian company shares/debentures compute gains by converting relevant amounts into the original purchase currency before reconversion; rupee appreciation gains on rupee bonds are ignored for full value computation.
      • The Bill leaves several operative details to "prescription" (indexation cases, calculation manner for specified entities, rates for currency conversion in the Bill text), creating reliance on subordinate rules; the enacted Act addresses some of these lacunae more expressly (notably exchange-rate prescription in the Act but not in the Bill).

      Full Text:

      Section 72 Mode of computation of capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax