Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 87 "Exemption of capital gains on transfer of assets in cases of shifting of industrial undertaking from urban area." 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 87 Exemption of capital gains on transfer of assets in cases of shifting of industrial undertaking from urban area.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 87 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides for exemption of capital gains arising on transfer of assets in the context of shifting an industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area. It sets out the conditions under which capital gains may be not charged or deferred, the treatment where the gains are reinvested in "new assets", and the time limits and deposit mechanism for unutilised gains. The provision principally affects taxpayers operating industrial undertakings, and the Revenue in administering exemptions. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 87, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Context: a targeted capital gains exemption aimed at encouraging shifting of industrial undertakings from urban to non-urban areas by providing tax relief where capital gains are reinvested in specified assets related to the relocated undertaking. Coverage: capital gains on transfer of capital asset being machinery, plant, building, land, or rights in building or land used for business of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area, where the transfer is effected in the case of shifting to a non-urban area. Definitions or explanatory material: the clause defines "urban area" for the purposes of the section by reference to limits of municipal corporation or municipality and declaration by the Central Government with regard to population, concentration of industries and need for proper planning. No other definitions are provided in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause applies where an assessee has capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset (machinery, plant, building, land or rights therein) used for the business of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area, and the transfer is effected as part of shifting that undertaking to a non-urban area. The core scope elements are:

      • Nature of asset: machinery, plant, building, land or rights in building/land used in the business of the industrial undertaking.
      • Triggering event: transfer effected in connection with shifting the undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area.
      • Temporal window for reinvestment: within one year before or three years after the date of such transfer the assessee must have undertaken specified actions.
      • Specified actions (new asset uses):
        • (i) purchased new machinery or plant for the industrial undertaking in the new area;
        • (ii) acquired building or land or constructed building for business in the new area;
        • (iii) shifted the original asset and transferred its establishment to the new area;
        • (iv) incurred expenses on other purposes as specified in a Central Government notified scheme for this section.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the text: to incentivise relocation of industrial activity from urban to non-urban areas by deferring or exempting capital gains tax where gains are applied to capital expenditure in the relocated undertaking. The clause uses reinvestment and deposit mechanisms to tie tax relief to actual deployment of gains into productive assets for the relocated operation. The text contemplates both prior purchases (one year before) and post-transfer reinvestments (three years after), signalling flexibility in timing provided the specified actions occur within that window.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains procedural and consequential rules rather than carve-out exceptions. Key provisions:

      • Where the cost and expenses incurred on new assets is equal to or exceeds the capital gain, no capital gain shall be charged u/s 67.
      • Where such cost/expenses are less than the capital gains, the difference shall be charged as income u/s 67 for the tax year.
      • For any capital gain arising from transfer of the "new asset" within three years of its being acquired/constructed/transferred, the cost of the new asset shall be nil if the gain was fully absorbed (i.e., cost >= capital gain), or shall be reduced by the amount of capital gain where only part of the gain was absorbed.
      • If capital gains are not used for the new asset within the stated period, the unutilised amount must be deposited in a specified bank/institution and utilised as per a notified scheme; timelines and proof obligations apply.
      • Unutilised deposited amounts not applied within the three-year period will be charged as income u/s 67 in the tax year in which the three-year period expires, though withdrawal in accordance with the notified scheme is permitted.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee sells machinery (original asset) in an urban area realising capital gains of Rs. 100 lakh. Within the three-year window the assessee purchases new machinery in the non-urban new area costing Rs. 120 lakh. Result under Clause 87(1)(A)(II): no capital gain charged u/s 67; for subsequent disposal of new machinery within three years, its cost shall be nil.
      • Example 2: Same facts but new machinery purchase costs Rs. 70 lakh. Result under Clause 87(1)(A)(I): Rs. 30 lakh (100-70) will be charged as income u/s 67 in the tax year of transfer; cost of the new asset for computing later capital gains will be reduced by Rs. 30 lakh.
      • Example 3: Assessee fails to apply the capital gain proceeds to any qualifying new asset within the relevant window but deposits the unutilised amount in the specified institution as required. If not applied within three years, the unutilised amount will be charged as income u/s 67 in the tax year when the three-year period expires.

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references section 67 (for charging the unabsorbed portion as income) and relies on a Central Government notified scheme for specifying permissible other expenditures and the mechanics of deposits and withdrawals. No other statutes, rules, notifications or circulars are named in the clause text. The clause operates as a self-contained relief subject to compliance with the notified scheme and procedural deposit requirements.

      Differences Between Clause 87 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Comparison summary based strictly on the two documents provided:

      • Destination terminology: Document 1 (Section 87 Act, 2025) speaks of shifting to "any area [other than an urban area (new area)]"; Document 2 (Clause 87 Bill, Old Version) uses "non-urban area (new area)".
        • Practical impact: wording change is semantic; both identify relocation to areas outside urban areas as qualifying. No substantive difference in scope is apparent from the texts.
      • Drafting and cross-reference differences: Document 1 expressly refers to filing the return under "section 263" in certain subsections; Document 2 refers to "the said section" or "sub-section (1) of the said section" when setting the due date for deposits.
        • Practical impact: these are drafting variations in cross-referencing the return-filing due date; effect on interpretation depends on which section is intended, but the Bill text as provided does not clarify any substantive change in timing beyond referencing the due date for filing the return. (If further clarity is required on the intended section reference, the documents do not state one unequivocally.)
      • Minor phrasing and typographical differences: Document 2 contains phrases such as "cost and expenses incurred in on all or any" and refers to "clause (a)" and "clause (b)" in sub-clause (B) whereas Document 1 uses sub-clause lettering (A)(I)/(II).
        • Practical impact: primarily drafting clarity and possible ambiguity in cross-references; operationally the economic outcomes as to taxability and basis adjustments appear consistent.
      • Deposit and proof timing wording: Document 1 requires 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(1)"; Document 2 states deposit is to be made "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 that proof is to be submitted "on or before the due date for filing the return."
        • Practical impact: slight differences in description of timing and where proof is submitted; substantively both require deposit by the due date for filing the return and proof to accompany the return. The documents do not state any change to the operative deadline beyond these phrasings.
      • Definition of "urban area": both texts define it as any area within limits of municipal corporation/municipality declared urban by the Central Government having regard to population, concentration of industries and planning needs.
        • Practical impact: consistent definition across both texts.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: taxpayers must evidentially demonstrate that capital gains were utilised for qualifying new assets within the one-year-before or three-years-after window. Failure to do so triggers deposit obligations and ultimately chargeability as income u/s 67.

      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: contemporaneous purchase deeds, invoices for machinery/plant, building acquisition/ construction contracts, evidence of transfer and shifting of establishment, bank deposit evidence where required by sub-section (2), and documentation conforming to the Central Government's notified scheme. The clause requires proof of deposit to be submitted with the return.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 87 provides a reinvestment-linked exemption for capital gains arising from transfers connected with shifting industrial undertakings from urban to non-urban areas.
      • The exemption is conditional on purchase/acquisition/construction/transfer or specified expenses within one year before or three years after the transfer date.
      • If reinvestment is equal to or exceeds the capital gain, no gain is charged; if less, the shortfall is charged as income u/s 67.
      • Capital gains reinvested under the clause affect the cost basis of the new asset for subsequent disposals within three years: either nil cost where fully absorbed, or cost reduced by the amount of the exempted gain.
      • Unutilised gains must be deposited in specified banks/institutions under a notified scheme and proof of deposit furnished with the return; failure to apply deposited funds within three years results in chargeability as income u/s 67.
      • "Urban area" is defined narrowly for the clause's purposes by reference to municipal limits and Central Government declaration considering population, industry concentration and planning needs.
      • Operational and evidentiary compliance with the notified scheme (including deposit and withdrawal mechanics) is essential; non-compliance results in tax consequences.

      Full Text:

      Section 87 Exemption of capital gains on transfer of assets in cases of shifting of industrial undertaking from urban area.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax