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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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