Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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