Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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