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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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