Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax