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 73 "Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition" 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 73 Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document: Clause 73 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It sets out deemed cost-of-acquisition rules for specified modes of acquisition of capital assets. The provision affects taxpayers (transferors/transferees, companies, mutual funds, trusts), and tax administration in determining capital gains. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 73 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The clause prescribes deemed cost of acquisition for capital assets that become the property of an assessee by various modes (gift, succession, liquidation distribution, trust transfers, specified transfers u/s 70(1) variants, demerger, consolidation of mutual funds, conversion in LLP, etc.). The clause sets out a Table with 24 serial entries mapping specific acquisition scenarios (column B) to the deemed cost of acquisition (column C).

      Definitions/explanations within the clause: Sub-section (2) defines "previous owner of the property" for serial number 1; it adopts SEBI Circular definitions for "main portfolio", "segregated portfolio" and "total portfolio" for serial numbers 11 and 12; it defines "net worth" for serial numbers 14 and 15; and it provides that certain provisions (serial numbers 2, 14 and 15) shall, as far as may be, also apply to business reorganisation of a co-operative bank as referred to in section 65.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause covers multiple modes whereby an assessee acquires capital assets and specifies the deeming rule for cost of acquisition in each scenario. Core categories include acquisition by gift/will/succession/liquidation/trust, corporate reorganisations (amalgamation, demerger, exchanges under specific section 70(1) heads), mutual fund consolidations/segregations, conversion of LLP interests, redemption of GDRs, transfers involving Electronic Gold Receipts, units of business trusts, assets declared under the Income Declaration Scheme, assets where value was subject to transfer pricing u/s 92(2)(m), and assets of trusts/institutions where accreted income was computed u/s 352.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a principle of continuity of cost: when an asset passes to an assessee by specified non-purchase modes, the cost is generally the cost to the previous owner (often adjusted for improvements). For certain specified assets (e.g., amalgamation, demerger, segregated portfolios, consolidations), the clause prescribes formulaic apportionment or special rules to determine cost. For some categories (specified securities/sweat equity and assets declared under a prior disclosure scheme), fair market value is adopted as the relevant cost.

      Legislative intent suggested by text: to ensure tax neutrality in non-market transfers by preserving the prior owner's cost base (or substituting an objective market value where appropriate), and to provide clear mechanical rules for corporate reorganisations and fund restructurings. (Legislative history or policy rationale beyond the text: Not stated in the document.)

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No separate provisos are present beyond the Table and sub-section (2) clarifications. Specific carve-outs are embedded in entries (e.g., some entries only apply to shares of amalgamating companies, or to specified securities referred to in a particular section). Thresholds or monetary limits: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A person receives shares by inheritance (serial 1). Deemed cost = cost for which the previous owner acquired the shares, increased by cost of improvements incurred by either the previous owner or the assessee.
      • Example 2: A mutual fund segregates a portfolio (serial 11). The cost of acquisition of units in the segregated portfolio is computed using X = A x B / C where A = cost of acquisition of units in total portfolio; B = NAV of asset transferred to segregated portfolio; C = NAV of total portfolio immediately before segregation.
      • Example 3: Shares acquired by a non-resident on redemption of GDRs (serial 6). Deemed cost = price of the shares on a recognised stock exchange on the date of request for redemption.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-references numerous other provisions (various heads of section 70(1), section 17(2), section 67(14), section 352, section 92(2)(m), section 26(2)(j), SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/IMD/DF2/CIR/P/2018/160). Interaction with those provisions is integral: the deemed cost outcomes depend on definitions and triggers in those sections and the SEBI circular. Other interactions (e.g., with capital gains indexing rules, cost inflation index, or exemptions) are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to section on specified securities/sweat equity (Table entry 4): Bill (Clause 73) cites section 17(2); Act (Section 73) cites section 17(1)(d).
        • Practical impact: The amendment in the Act changes the statutory anchor for which category of specified securities or sweat equity shares the deemed cost rule applies. This can affect which instruments are valued at fair market value for cost purposes. (Precise reach of the change: Not stated in the document.)
      • Exclusion in entry regarding shares in a project (Table entry 20): Bill refers to "Capital asset, being share in the project, in the form of land or building, or both, u/s 67(14)"; Act adds the qualification "not being a capital asset referred to in section 67(16)".
        • Practical impact: The Act narrows the entry by excluding assets covered by section 67(16), thereby limiting the scope of the deemed cost rule under this entry. This reduces unintended coverage for assets specifically carved out by section 67(16). (Further detail: Not stated in the document.)
      • Provision for accreted income / fair market value reference (Table entry 21): Bill cites computation and tax paid as per section 352 and uses section 352(3) for the specified date; Act cites section 352 and uses section 352(2) for the specified date.
        • Practical impact: The Act shifts the cross-reference to a different sub-paragraph of section 352 for the relevant date when fair market value was considered for computation of accreted income. This may change the precise valuation date or procedural reference for trusts/institutions. (Exact date/implication: Not stated in the document.)
      • Formulation of formulae and minor drafting differences (Table entries 11 and 14): Bill expresses formulas as "X = A x B /C" and in entry 11 uses "immediately before segregation"; Act sets out formula in a two-line presentation "X = A x B / C" with explanatory punctuation and uses "immediately before segregation of portfolios" (slightly fuller wording).
        • Practical impact: These are drafting and clarity differences; the mathematical operation appears identical. The Act's fuller wording may reduce ambiguity about the temporal reference ("immediately before segregation of portfolios").
      • Wording differences in reduction language for original units/shares (Table entries 12 and 15): Bill uses shorter phrasing ("The cost of acquisition as reduced by..."; "As reduced by..."); Act uses fuller phrasing ("The cost of acquisition of such original units as reduced by..." and "The cost of acquisition of such original shares as reduced by...").
        • Practical impact: Primarily stylistic; the Act's phrasing is marginally clearer on subject of reduction being applied to the cost of acquisition of the original asset.
      • Cross-reference to cooperative bank business reorganisation (sub-section (2)(d)): Bill refers to section 65; Act refers to section 64.
        • Practical impact: The Act alters which section governs application "as far as may be" to co-operative bank reorganisations. This may change whether the listed rules apply to such reorganisations (scope depends on the substantive content of sections 64/65, which is Not stated in the document).
      • Minor wording elsewhere (e.g., serial 3 wording "in relation to which such asset is acquired by the assesse" in Act vs "for which such asset is acquired by the assesse" in Bill):
        • Practical impact: These are drafting refinements likely intended to improve grammatical clarity; they do not, on the face of the text, alter substantive effect.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers receiving assets by non-purchase modes must trace the previous owner's cost of acquisition (serial 1). Where assets arise from reorganisations, taxpayers and advisers must apply the prescribed formulae to apportion cost (serials 11, 14). For instruments where fair market value is prescribed (serials 4, 17, 18, 21, 22), appropriate documentation of valuation date and valuation method is necessary. The clause delegates some definitional matters (e.g., SEBI definitions), so reliance on external circulars is required.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain purchase records of previous owners where available; documents substantiating improvements; NAV statements and contemporaneous valuation data for mutual fund reorganisations; stock exchange prices on specified dates (e.g., GDR redemption date); records of tax paid and valuation dates u/s 352; records of disclosure and payment under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 where invoked.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 73 prescribes deemed cost of acquisition rules for a wide range of non-market transfers and restructurings.
      • General rule: the prior owner's cost (plus improvements) is carried forward in most non-purchase acquisitions.
      • Specific categories (amalgamation, demerger, segregations, consolidations) require mechanical apportionment/formulae to determine cost.
      • Certain instruments/assets use fair market value or market price on a specified date as deemed cost.
      • The clause cross-references several statutory provisions and a SEBI circular; precise application depends on those external texts.
      • Taxpayers must preserve evidence of prior costs, improvements, NAVs, market prices and valuation dates to support cost calculations.
      • Where the Bill uses concise phrasing, careful reading with the cross-references is necessary to determine operative dates and definitions.

      Full Text:

      Section 73 Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax