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 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