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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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 74 "Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets" 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 74 Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 74 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) is a proposed statutory provision titled "Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets." It seeks to modify how sections 72 and 73 operate where capital assets form part of a block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed. The provision affects taxpayers holding depreciable assets and the tax department in the assessment of capital gains. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 74 expressly interacts with section 2(101) and with sections 72 and 73 of the Income-tax law corpus (the document identifies prior Acts: this Act, the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). The clause applies to "a capital asset forming part of a block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed" under the cited Acts. The text establishes that, "Irrespective of anything contained in section 2(101)," the provisions of sections 72 and 73 shall be subject to Clause 74's sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Definitions or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document beyond the reference to blocks of assets and depreciation having been allowed under the specified enactments.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 74(1) creates a special rule overriding normal definitions in section 2(101) where the asset is part of a depreciable block. It subjects sections 72 and 73 to the special rules in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Sub-section (2) sets out a formulaic rule: where, during a tax year, the full value of consideration received or accruing for transfer of one or more assets in a block of assets exceeds the aggregate of (a) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for such transfer; (b) the written-down value (WDV) of the block at the start of the tax year; and (c) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block acquired during the tax year, then the excess is "deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets." Sub-section (3) provides for the special case when the block of assets "ceases to exist" because all assets in the block are transferred during the tax year; it prescribes (a) the cost of acquisition of the block as the WDV at the beginning of the year increased by actual cost of assets acquired during the year; and (b) that the income received or accruing from such transfers "shall be deemed to be short-term capital gains." The text also makes cross-reference to depreciation allowances under the present Bill and the prior Acts cited.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the text: The clause intends to treat certain proceeds from transfer of assets that form part of a depreciable block as capital gains of short-term character, rather than allowing ordinary block-set-off or rollover principles u/ss 72 and 73 to wholly neutralise such receipts. The explicit override of section 2(101) suggests a deliberate re-characterisation of qualifying receipts even if the ordinary meaning of "capital asset" would be displaced. The prescriptive arithmetic in sub-section (2) sets out an order of priority-expenses of transfer, opening WDV, and cost of additions-before any excess is treated as capital gain. Interpretive principles: the clause is drafted in mandatory terms ("shall be deemed"), signaling a non-discretionary reclassification where the numeric condition is met. The clause identifies the event triggering the rule (receipt/ accrual of full value of consideration during the tax year).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, carve-outs, thresholds or exceptions beyond the two factual scenarios covered in sub-sections (2) and (3) are provided in the text. Any additional exclusions or special cases (including the content of sub-section (4) referred to in sub-section (1)) are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly places sections 72 and 73 subject to its sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), indicating that the special computation will displace the regular block-of-assets adjustments in those sections to the extent the Clause applies. The Clause also references section 2(101) (the definition of "capital asset") and purports to operate "Irrespective of anything contained" in that definition. Interaction with rules, notifications or circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 74 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 74 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and practical impact

      • Scope of application of subsections: Clause 74 (Bill) includes sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) as being the subject-matter overriding sections 72 and 73; Section 74 (Act) refers only to sub-sections (2) and (3).
        • Practical impact: If sub-section (4) in the Bill contained an additional rule (not present in the Act text provided), its omission from the enacted Section 74 narrows the special overriding regime; however, the documents do not state the content of any sub-section (4). Therefore the practical consequence is that any additional rule intended in the Bill's sub-section (4) does not appear in the Act text as provided. (If that sub-section contained substantive obligations or exceptions, taxpayers and practitioners would need to account for its absence; the documents do not state what that would be.)
      • Wording differences on expenditure: Clause 74(2)(a) uses the phrase "expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for such transfer;" Section 74(2)(a) uses "expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer;"
        • Practical impact: The change from "for" to "in connection with" may marginally broaden the scope of deductible transfer-related expenditure in the enacted Section 74 compared to the Bill's text, though the documents do not elaborate on legislative intent or examples to demonstrate a substantive difference.
      • Description of resulting gains in sub-section (3)(b): Clause 74(3)(b) states "shall be deemed to be short-term capital gains." Section 74(3)(b) states "shall be deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets."
        • Practical impact: Both formulations aim to characterise the income as short-term capital in nature; the Act's wording ties the gains specifically to "transfer of short-term capital assets," perhaps emphasising the nomenclature consistent with other sections. There is no stated practical divergence in taxation outcome in the documents.
      • Order and citation of predecessor enactments: The Bill and Act both reference the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but the sequence differs between the two.
        • Practical impact: No substantive legal effect is stated in the documents; ordering of cited statutes is a drafting variation only.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers disposing of one or more assets that belong to a depreciable block must compute whether the full value of consideration in a tax year exceeds (i) transfer expenditure, (ii) opening WDV of the block, and (iii) cost of any additions in that year. If so, the excess will be treated as short-term capital gains. This creates a compliance necessity to segregate receipts by block and to maintain precise records of WDV and acquisition costs. Failure to apply the deeming rule may lead to incorrect characterisation of income and corresponding assessments or disputes.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text implies stakeholders should maintain documentary evidence of (a) full value of consideration received or accruing, (b) expenditure wholly and exclusively for the transfer, (c) opening written-down value of the block, and (d) actual cost of assets acquired during the tax year that fall within the block. The Clause's reliance on such numeric comparisons makes contemporaneous accounting records and asset schedules essential.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 74 creates a special deeming rule for capital gains where assets forming part of a depreciable block are transferred.
      • It overrides section 2(101) and places sections 72 and 73 subject to the Clause's sub-sections (2), (3) and (4).
      • Where consideration received/accruing for transfers in a tax year exceeds transfer expenditure, opening WDV and costs of additions, the excess is deemed short-term capital gains.
      • If an entire block is transferred in a tax year, cost of acquisition is prescribed as opening WDV plus costs of acquisitions in the year, and resulting receipts are deemed short-term capital gains.
      • The Clause requires clear asset-wise accounting and documentary support for WDV, acquisition cost and transfer expenses to determine the operation of the deeming provisions.
      • Content of any additional sub-section (4) referred to in Clause 74(1) is Not stated in the document.
      • Examples, implementation mechanics, interaction with administrative guidance or transitional provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 74 Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax