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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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 85 "Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      30 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) provides an exemption mechanism where long-term capital gains from transfer of land or building are not charged if reinvested, within six months, into specified long-term bonds. It affects taxpayers holding capital gains from immovable property and the tax department's assessment of deferred gains. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The provision addresses treatment of long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of land or building (original asset) when reinvested into certain long-term bonds (new asset). Definitions/explanations: Clause 85(6) defines "new asset" as any bond redeemable after five years and as notified by the Central Government for the purposes of this section with such conditions (including a condition for providing a limit on the amount of investment by an assessee in such bond). No other statutory cross-references or definitional elaborations are included in the text. Any further definitions (for example, of "long-term capital gains" or "transfer") are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 85 applies when: (a) an assessee has long-term capital gains from transfer of land or building (original asset); and (b) within six months of that transfer, the assessee invests whole or part of those capital gains in a "new asset" (long-term bond as defined). The clause prescribes two outcomes: (i) if capital gains exceed the investment in the new asset, the excess is charged u/s 67; (ii) if capital gains are equal to or less than the investment, the whole gain shall not be charged u/s 67. Clause 85(2) caps the amount of investment eligible for this treatment at fifty lakh rupees: this cap applies either during any tax year or in the year of transfer and the subsequent tax year. Clause 85(3) provides anti-avoidance: if the new asset is transferred or converted into money within five years, the previously exempted capital gains are deemed to be income chargeable as long-term capital gains in the tax year of that transfer or conversion. Clause 85(4) treats any loan or advance taken on security of the new asset as "regarded as transfer" of the new asset on the date of the loan/advance. Clause 85(5) disallows deduction u/s 123 for any tax year for investments taken into account under sub-section (1). Clause 85(6) defines "new asset" as described above.

      Interpretation

      The textual intent is to provide a limited roll-over-like relief (deferment of tax) for long-term capital gains from immovable property where the gains are reinvested into specified long-term bonds. The six-month reinvestment window, five-year holding requirement for the bond, and a monetary cap (Rs. 50 lakh) indicate a legislative balance between incentivising certain public/sector bonds and preventing indefinite tax avoidance. The statutory language indicates a legislative policy to treat the reinvestment as a basis for not charging gains immediately, subject to temporal and monetary safeguards. No explicit legislative history or purposive statement beyond the clause text is provided. Not stated in the document: any legislative note, explanatory memorandum, or policy rationale beyond the text.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 85 contains built-in conditions and limits rather than separate provisos: the six-month investment period, the Rs. 50 lakh ceiling (applying as per sub-section (2)), and the five-year retention rule with deeming consequences on breach. There is also a prohibition on claiming deduction u/s 123 for amounts invested under sub-section (1). No other carve-outs, exemptions for particular categories of taxpayers, or transitional provisions are contained in the provision. Not stated in the document: treatment where part of the gains are reinvested beyond Rs. 50 lakh, or where reinvestment occurs after six months but before filing-only the text is available.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee realises long-term capital gain of Rs. 60,00,000 on sale of land. Within six months, the assessee invests Rs. 50,00,000 (all from the gain) in notified bonds qualifying as "new asset". Under Clause 85(1)(i) Rs. 10,00,000 (the excess) is charged u/s 67; Rs. 50,00,000 is not charged u/s 67 (subject to later events such as transfer within five years).
      • Example 2: An assessee realises long-term capital gain of Rs. 40,00,000 and within six months invests the whole amount in qualifying bonds. Under Clause 85(1)(ii), the entire gain of Rs. 40,00,000 is not charged u/s 67, provided the bonds are retained for five years.

      Interplay

      The provision references section 67 (for charging gains) and section 123 (for denial of deduction) but does not elaborate how computations under those sections are to be adjusted. No Rules, Notifications or Circulars are incorporated into the clause beyond the delegation to the Central Government to notify bonds (Clause 85(6)). Not stated in the document: specific interactions with other provisions such as indexation rules, computation of cost of acquisition for the reinvested asset, or the income-tax return disclosure requirements. The clause contemplates notifications with "such conditions" - potential interplay will depend on subsequent notifications issued under that power.

      Differences between Section 85 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 85 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and practical impact

      • Definition / Scope of "new asset"/"long-term specified asset":
        • Bill (Old Version) - Clause 85(6): defines "new asset" broadly as "any bond, redeemable after five years and as notified by the Central Government for the purposes of this section with such conditions (including a condition for providing a limit on the amount of investment by an assessee in such bond)."
        • Act - Section 85(6): uses the term "long-term specified asset" and expressly lists bonds issued by National Highways Authority of India or Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (and any other bond notified), redeemable after five years and issued on or after 1 April 2018.
        • Practical impact: The Act is more prescriptive - it specifies eligible issuers and a temporal cutoff (on or after 1 April 2018). The Bill's language is broader and delegates more to notification, including condition-setting. Under the Act, certain bonds are expressly eligible; under the Bill, eligibility depends more on future notifications and imposed conditions, potentially creating greater administrative discretion and uncertainty for taxpayers until notifications are issued.
      • Treatment of loans/advances secured by the new asset:
        • Bill - Clause 85(4): "Any loan or advance taken on the security of the new asset shall be regarded as transfer of the new asset on the date of such loan or advance."
        • Act - Section 85(4): "Any loan or advance taken on the security of the new asset shall be deemed to have converted the new asset into money on the date of such loan or advance."
        • Practical impact: The Bill treats a secured loan/advance as a "regarded" transfer (language typically used to attribute a transfer-like consequence), while the Act treats it as a deemed conversion into money. Both create similar fiscal consequences (loss of exemption), but the Act's "deemed conversion into money" language may better align with triggering chargeability as capital gains and with consequential computations; the Bill's phrasing could raise interpretive questions about whether other modes of transfer treatment apply.
      • Terminology and cross-references:
        • Bill and Act: Both refer to charging u/s 67 and denial of deduction u/s 123 when investment is claimed. The Act's text substitutes "long-term specified asset" for the Bill's "new asset" and adds issuer examples and the 2018 date.
        • Practical impact: Terminological differences are modest but the Act's specificity narrows literal scope and clarifies temporal applicability, reducing some uncertainty left by the Bill.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure reinvestment of gains occurs within six months and does not exceed Rs. 50 lakh for the relevant period(s). Failure to comply (late investment, over-investment, or early transfer/encumbrance) triggers chargeability u/s 67 or deeming of previously exempted gains. The clause's treatment of loans/advances secured by the bond as regarded/treated as transfer creates an anti-abuse rule that requires caution before pledging bonds secured against borrowing.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should retain dated proof of sale (showing date of transfer), bank records showing that reinvestment occurred within six months, details of the notified bond (notification reference once issued), and documentation demonstrating retention of the bond for five years. Proof of any loans/advances secured on the bond and the dates of such transactions should be preserved, given the deeming consequence. Not stated in the document: specific forms or returns for claiming the benefit.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 85 creates a limited roll-over relief for long-term capital gains from land/building reinvested in notified long-term bonds within six months.
      • The relief is capped at Rs. 50 lakh as to amount permitted in the tax year or across the year of transfer and the subsequent year.
      • Deemed chargeability applies if the bond is transferred, converted into money, or (per Clause 85(4)) if a loan/advance is taken on the security of the bond within five years.
      • Investment qualifying as "new asset" depends on Central Government notification; the clause contemplates conditions to be imposed by notification, creating dependency on subordinate legislation.
      • Deduction u/s 123 is specifically disallowed for investments taken into account under sub-section (1).
      • Several practical details (return procedure, computational adjustments, legislative intent beyond the text) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax