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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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