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 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