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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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