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 536 "Repeal and savings." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      17 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 536 Repeal and savings.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These two texts are versions of a transitional provision (Clause/Section 536) dealing with repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and savings arising from that repeal in the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025. They matter because they govern continuity of rights, obligations, pending proceedings, carry-forwards, deductions and other transitional arrangements when a new income-tax statute replaces the 1961 Act. The principal actors affected are taxpayers (individuals, companies, cooperatives, amalgamated/successor entities) and revenue authorities. Effective dates referenced in the texts include commencement of the new Act and 1 April 2026 (and in one text a reference to 1 April 2025); specific effective timing is stated in the texts where present.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and application of transitional savings. Both texts are framed as a single clause titled "Repeal and savings" that seeks to preserve prior actions, proceedings and entitlements despite repeal. The documents enumerate specific categories: pending and future proceedings in respect of pre-1 April 2026 tax years; penalty proceedings; elections/options; refunds and interest; recovery of sums; carry-forwards of tax credits, losses and depreciation allowances; certain deductions and deferred revenue expenditure; treatment of notified schemes; and searches/requisitions u/ss 132/132A of the repealed Act. The documents contain tables listing sources/heads of income and corresponding repealed Act sections for loss carry-forward. Where definitions or explanatory definitions would normally appear, the texts do not provide definitions beyond referring to the "repealed Income-tax Act" and corresponding provisions of "this Act".

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause repeals the Income-tax Act, 1961 and provides detailed savings to preserve prior operations: prior actions, rights, obligations, pending proceedings and proceedings in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026; penalty proceedings; elections/options made under the repealed Act; interest rules for refunds and defaults; recovery of sums; continuance of agreements, appointments, approvals, circulars, notifications, rules and schemes (subject to consistency with corresponding provisions); carry-forward and set-off of specified losses and credits (including under specified repealed sections such as 71B, 72, 73, 73A, 74A, 74, 72A, 72AB, 115JAA and 115JD); carry-forward of capital losses for up to eight succeeding financial years where originally allowed u/s 74; special treatment of allowances u/ss 32(2)/35(4) and specific deductions referred to in enumerated repealed sections; and continuation of search/requisition proceedings begun u/ss 132/132A. The clause also invokes section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for the effect of repeal.

      Interpretation

      The text evidences legislative intent to achieve continuity and to minimise disruption caused by repeal: rights and liabilities are preserved, pending and certain future proceedings related to pre-cut-off tax years are to be governed by the repealed procedural rules, and substantive tax positions (losses, credits, deductions) are carried forward and recognised under corresponding provisions in the new Act. The clause uses deeming language ("shall be deemed to have been", "shall continue to apply", "shall be deemed to be") to effect technical carryovers. Where the new Act lacks corresponding provisions, specific fallback sections in the new Act are identified for continuity of schemes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any express limitation on how long proceedings may be continued under the repealed Act apart from references to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026. Not stated in the document: transitional timelines for filing or service where procedural rules differ between the statutes, other than the general preservation language. Not stated in the document: any express power to adapt forms, fees or procedural modalities to the new Act where proceedings are continued under the repealed Act.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A reassessment notice issued in respect of tax year 2023-24 that remains pending on commencement of the new Act will continue and be disposed of under the repealed Act's procedure.
      • Example 2: A capital loss arising in tax year 2024-25 brought forward u/s 74 of the repealed Act may be set off against capital gains for up to eight succeeding financial years as carried forward under the savings clause.
      • Example 3: A scheme notified under the repealed Act to eliminate interface with assessees will be treated as a scheme under the corresponding provision of the new Act (or under the fallback section specified in the new Act) and will remain in force to the extent not inconsistent.

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly cross-refers to specified sections of the repealed Act (listed in the table and in sub-clauses) and to corresponding provisions of the new Act (or specified fallback sections). It also invokes section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for guidance on effect of repeal. No other rules, notifications or circulars are expressly referenced beyond deeming prior notifications/circulars to continue where not inconsistent.

      Differences between the Document 1 "Section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025" and Document 2 "Clause 2 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old version)"

      • Scope of continuing proceedings (Document 1, sub-section (2)(c) vs Document 2, sub-section (2)(c)): Document 1 expressly preserves application of the repealed Act to any proceeding pending on commencement and to any proceedings "initiated on after the 1st April, 2026" in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, with such proceedings to be carried out under the repealed Act. Document 2 preserves proceedings in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, but omits the explicit phrase preserving proceedings initiated after 1 April 2026.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 more clearly authorises procedural continuation under the repealed Act even for proceedings that are initiated after 1 April 2026 so long as they concern pre-1 April 2026 tax years; Document 2 may be read as narrower, potentially raising interpretive questions about proceedings commenced after the cut-off date and whether they must follow the new Act's procedure. The wider formulation in Document 1 reduces transitional uncertainty for authorities and taxpayers about which procedure applies to late-initiated matters relating to earlier tax years.
      • Temporal reference for searches/requisitions (Document 1 sub-section (2)(v) vs Document 2 sub-section (2)(v)): Document 1 preserves application of repealed Act provisions to searches/requisitions "initiated u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A prior to the commencement of this Act" (no fixed calendar date). Document 2 limits preservation to searches/requisitions initiated "prior to the 1st April, 2026."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 ties preservation to the Act's commencement date (which may differ from 1 April 2026), allowing flexibility if commencement occurs on a date other than 1 April 2026; Document 2 fixes the calendar date 1 April 2026. The difference affects which searches/requisitions are governed by the repealed Act versus the new Act when commencement and 1 April 2026 diverge.
      • Reference to tax year 2025 vs corresponding previous year (Document 1 sub-section (3) vs Document 2 sub-section (3)): Document 1 includes an additional sub-section (3) stating that where this Act refers to any tax year commencing on 1 April 2025 or earlier, such reference shall be construed as reference to the corresponding previous year under the repealed Act. Document 2's sub-section (3) does not include this; instead it only applies section 6 of the General Clauses Act (as its third paragraph).
        • Practical impact: Document 1 supplies an express rule for translating certain tax-year references into the repealed Act's framing, which reduces ambiguity in cross-references to earlier tax years; Document 2 lacks that express translator which could lead to interpretive disputes about corresponding previous years where year-naming conventions differ between Acts.
      • Corrections and internal textual differences: Document 2 contains editorial "NOTES" indicating corrections to specific phrases (e.g., "hereinafter" corrected to "herein", consistent use of "repealed Income-tax Act"), and some sub-clause numbering and cross-references differ (examples: section numbers cited in certain provisos are slightly different between texts). Document 1 appears as a finalized Act text with some expanded cross-references (e.g., explicit inclusion of "recomputation" in list in (2)(c)).
        • Practical impact: Editorial corrections in Document 2 show drafting adjustments; Document 1's finalized phrasing and added particulars (e.g., recomputation) clarify procedural items that affect how authorities and taxpayers identify covered actions. The more expansive list in Document 1 reduces dispute as to whether specific procedures are covered by the savings clause.
      • Treatment of schemes and corresponding section references: Document 1 deems schemes notified under the repealed Act to have been made under corresponding provisions of the new Act or u/s 532 if no corresponding provision exists; Document 2 contains the same idea but refers to section 294B where there is no corresponding provision.
        • Practical impact: The alternate fallback section numbering (532 vs 294B) changes where residual schemes are placed in the new statute; this has practical consequences for the administrative basis under which such schemes will operate and for legal challenge-users must check which fallback is actually enacted to know which administrative head applies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers and advisors must identify which tax years are "before 1 April 2026" to determine whether the repealed Act's rules govern ongoing matters. Where Document 1 language is used, additional certainty exists for proceedings initiated after commencement but relating to earlier years. Ambiguities in cross-references (e.g., fallback sections for schemes) require attention to the final enacted numbering and text.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain full records of elections/options made under the repealed Act; documentation to support incurred deductions and conditions attached to them; evidence supporting loss computations and dates when losses were first computed; records of notices, assessments, appeals, search/requisition initiation dates to determine which procedural regime applies.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause seeks to ensure continuity by preserving substantive entitlements and procedural treatment for matters tied to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026.
      • Document 1 contains broader and more explicit transitional language (e.g., proceedings initiated after 1 April 2026 and a commencement-based reference for searches), reducing interpretive gaps present in Document 2.
      • Carry-forwards (losses, credits, depreciation, certain deductions) are preserved and migrated to corresponding provisions of the new Act subject to satisfying corresponding conditions.
      • Notified schemes and prior administrative acts continue where not inconsistent, but the applicable fallback provision differs between versions (section 532 vs 294B), affecting administrative placement.
      • Taxpayers and administrators should secure contemporaneous evidence of elections, losses, and initiation dates of proceedings or searches to determine applicable law and avoid transitional disputes.

      Full Text:

      Section 536 Repeal and savings.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax