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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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