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 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