Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax