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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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