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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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