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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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