Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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