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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 86 "Capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house." 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 86 Capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 86 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides a rollover-like exemption from tax on long-term capital gains arising from transfer of non-residential long-term capital assets where proceeds are applied to purchase or construct one residential house in India within prescribed time windows. It matters to individual and HUF taxpayers who invest sale proceeds into residential property. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 86 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) is a provision dealing with taxation of long-term capital gains (LTCG) and provides conditions under which such gains are not charged u/s 67 (as referenced in the text). The provision targets individuals and Hindu undivided families (HUFs) who transfer long-term capital assets that are not residential houses and invest the sale proceeds in one residential house in India within specified pre- and post-transfer periods. Definitions and explanations provided in the text: "net consideration" is defined in clause (10) as the full value of consideration received or accruing from the transfer reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer. No other statutory definitions (for example, "cost", "new asset", "original asset" beyond descriptive usage) are defined in the clause.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause applies when an individual or HUF has: (a) LTCG from transfer of a long-term capital asset other than a residential house (termed "original asset"); and (b) purchases within one year before or two years after the transfer, or constructs within three years after the transfer, one residential house in India (termed "new asset"). Where these conditions are satisfied, clause 86 prescribes two outcomes: (i) if the net consideration exceeds cost of the new asset, a proportionate part of the LTCG equal to the ratio of cost of new asset to net consideration shall not be charged u/s 67; (ii) if net consideration is equal to or less than cost of the new asset, no LTCG shall be charged u/s 67.

      Interpretation

      The provision establishes a proportionate exemption mechanism - only that portion of LTCG corresponding to the amount of sale proceeds reinvested in the new asset (on a cost-to-net-consideration basis) is sheltered. The temporal windows (one year before; two years after for purchase; three years after for construction) are integral to qualify. The clause contemplates deposit of unutilised amounts into a specified bank/institution under a Central Government notified scheme where the proceeds are not immediately applied; such deposits are treated as part of the cost of the new asset for the purpose of computing exemption. The clause also contains anti-abuse measures by disallowing the benefit where the assessee owns more than one residential house (other than the new asset) on date of transfer or acquires/constructs another residential house in specified post-transfer time (with the result that the exemption will not apply where income from such other house is chargeable under "Income from house property").

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions stated in the clause:

      • Deposit requirement: if the capital gains is not utilised (see clause (2)) to purchase/construct the new asset within the specified window, the unutilised amount must be deposited in a specified bank/institution and utilised per a Central Government scheme. The deposit must be made not later than the due date for filing the return of income under the relevant provision; proof of deposit must accompany the return.
      • Non-application where multiple houses: clause (5) provides that the relief shall not apply if the assessee already owns more than one residential house (other than the new asset) on the date of transfer, or purchases another residential house (other than the new asset) within two years of transfer, or constructs any residential house (other than the new asset) within three years of transfer, and income from such other house is chargeable under "Income from house property".
      • Recapture: clause (4) provides recapture where deposited amounts are not utilised within the three-year period - an amount computed as X - Y (X = capital gains not charged under clause (1); Y = capital gains that would not have been charged if cost of the new asset had been the amount actually utilised) is chargeable u/s 67 in the tax year in which three years from the date of transfer expires; the assessee may withdraw the unutilised amount per the notified scheme.
      • Monetary caps: clause (8) disallows taking into account cost exceeding INR 10 crore for purposes of sub-section (1); clause (9) excludes amounts in excess of INR 10 crore of net consideration for purposes of sub-section (2).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (proportionate exemption): Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2 (deposit and recapture): Not stated in the document.
      • Example 3 (cap application): Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: the clause expressly refers to section 67 for the charging of capital gains and to filing due date provisions (sub-section references). It also contemplates a scheme notified by the Central Government for deposit and utilisation but does not itself specify that scheme. No further rules, notifications, or circulars are cited in the text.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to the operative amount in sub-section (2): Document 1 (Section 86, Act) refers to "net consideration referred to in sub-section (1) is not utilised", whereas Document 2 (Clause 86, Bill - Old Version) refers to "the capital gains is not utilised".
        • Practical impact: This alters the triggering quantum for deposit and utilisation requirements. "Net consideration" (full value less transfer expenses) and "capital gains" (net consideration minus indexed cost and exemptions) are different magnitudes; using "net consideration" in the Act likely increases the amount required to be deposited and tracked compared to the Bill's "capital gains".
      • Timing and filing references for deposit: Document 1 requires the deposit "before the filing of the return and not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for filing the return of income u/s 263; and the proof of deposit shall be submitted along with such return." Document 2 requires deposit "not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of the said section; and the proof of deposit shall be submitted along with the return on or before the due date for filing the return."
        • Practical impact: The Act (Document 1) cites section 263 (a specific provision) for the filing due date; the Bill (Document 2) cites "sub-section (1) of the said section" (less specific in the present text). The Act language is clearer and may shift the applicable due date reference; practical consequences depend on the meaning of the referenced section(s), but the Act's phrasing appears to impose deposit strictly before filing and ties proof submission to that return.
      • Ownership/purchase timing that disqualifies exemption: In Document 1 (Act), sub-section (5)(ii) disqualifies benefit if the assessee "purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within one year of transfer of the original asset." In Document 2 (Bill) that disqualifying period in sub-section (5)(ii) is "within two years of transfer of the original asset."
        • Practical impact: The Bill allowed a longer grace window (two years) for subsequent purchases that would disqualify the exemption; the Act narrows this to one year, tightening the conditions and increasing the risk of losing rollover relief if another residential house is acquired within one year.
      • Minor drafting and phrasing variances: There are minor textual differences (e.g., "the amount determined as per with the following formula" in the Bill versus the Act's cleaner formulation).
        • Practical impact: These are drafting-level differences and do not materially change substantive operation, though the Act's clearer drafting reduces interpretive uncertainty.
      • Overall practical consequence: The enacted Section (Document 1) moves some triggers and limits (reference to net consideration; shorter disqualification window for purchasing another house) in a direction that narrows relief and increases compliance complexity and deposit obligations relative to the Bill as shown in Document 2. Taxpayers and advisers need to track which quantum (net consideration vs capital gains) triggers deposit, and be vigilant about the one-year window for purchases that may disqualify the benefit in the Act.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must track the timing windows precisely (one year before, two years after for purchase; three years after for construction) to determine eligibility. They must also ensure timely deposit of unutilised amounts with specified institutions per the notified scheme and attach proof with the return; failure to deposit or to meet the timing could trigger full or partial taxation (recapture) u/s 67.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause requires proof of deposit to be submitted with the return; consequently, taxpayers should retain authenticated deposit receipts, bank/institutional acknowledgements, evidence of purchase/construction dates, and documentation showing computation of net consideration and cost of new asset. Records supporting the nature of other properties and rent/income chargeability under "Income from house property" will be material where clause (5) is relevant.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 86 provides a limited, conditional exemption from LTCG for individuals/HUFs reinvesting sale proceeds from non-residential long-term assets into one residential house in India within specified time windows.
      • The exemption is proportionate: the exempted quantum equals the ratio of cost of the new asset to net consideration applied to the total capital gains; full exemption applies only where cost of new asset equals or exceeds net consideration.
      • Unutilised amounts must be deposited in a specified bank/institution per a Central Government scheme by the due date for filing the return; proof must accompany the return.
      • Recapture rules operate where deposited amounts are not used within the stipulated three-year period; the clause prescribes a formula (X - Y) to compute taxable recapture.
      • Anti-abuse and qualifying conditions include exclusions for taxpayers owning or acquiring additional residential houses (with a two-year purchase disqualification under the Bill) and monetary caps of INR 10 crore on cost and net consideration for certain computations.
      • Key definitions are limited; "net consideration" is defined but several operational terms and the Central Government scheme are left to be specified elsewhere.

      Full Text:

      Section 86 Capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax