Section 97

Section 97 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 97, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd v PCIT — Chapter X-A invoked on an NCLT-sanctioned demerger: Rule issued because no appeal lies, and the s.144BA reference, the directions and the assessments stayed High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The department has invoked GAAR on a demerger that the NCLT sanctioned after notice to the income-tax authorities, and s.72A(4) expressly allowed the loss to move with the undertaking. I have no right of appeal against the reference or the directions. What can I actually do?
  You go to the High Court under Article 226, and the Bombay High Court has said in terms that the absence of an appeal is itself a reason to entertain the writ. On 19 December 2025 it issued Rule on a petition challenging a s.144BA reference dated 31 March 2025 and directions dated 30 October 2025 invoking Chapter X-A on an NCLT-sanctioned demerger, recording that it was "mindful of the fact that there is no provisions for an Appeal for impugning the reference ... or the directions ... invoking the provisions of Chapter X-A of the IT Act". It found a strong prima facie case and granted interim relief staying the reference, the directions and the assessment proceedings for AYs 2022-23 and 2023-24. Two arguments carried that interim finding: that Chapter X-A could never have been invoked once a competent authority, the NCLT, had sanctioned the demerger after notice to the income-tax authorities who raised no objection; and that s.72A(4) expressly permits the transfer of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the demerged undertaking, so that what the Act itself allows cannot be an impermissible avoidance arrangement.
• Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla v PCIT High CourtHelps departmentUnder appeal
  The AO invoked GAAR even though a specific anti-avoidance section covers my transaction. Can he do that?
  Yes, on this ruling. Chapter X-A is not shut out because a specific anti-avoidance rule occupies part of the field: s.95(1) opens with a non-obstante clause, which displaces the usual presumption that the special provision excludes the general one, so GAAR can supersede a SAAR. The Court also refused to interfere at the initiation stage because s.144BA gives the assessee a reference to the Principal Commissioner and the Approving Panel.
• Statutory position — section 98 and Rule 10UA: what the department may actually do once an arrangement is declared impermissible CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  If the Approving Panel declares my client's arrangement impermissible, what consequences can the Assessing Officer impose, and can he recast the whole structure or only the offending part?
  Section 98(1) lets the consequences be determined 'in such manner as is deemed appropriate' and gives a non-exhaustive list of seven powers, including disregarding, combining or recharacterising any step; treating the arrangement as if it had not been entered into; disregarding an accommodating party; treating connected persons as one person; reallocating receipts and expenditure among the parties; relocating the residence of a party or the situs of an asset or transaction; and looking through any corporate structure. Section 98(2) adds that equity may be treated as debt or vice versa, capital may be treated as revenue or vice versa, and any expenditure, deduction, relief or rebate may be recharacterised — but Rule 10UA confines the consequences to the offending part where only a part of the arrangement is declared impermissible.
• Statutory position — section 99, section 97(3) and section 102: connected persons and the accommodating party, and how they are collapsed into one taxpayer CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The GAAR notice says a Mauritius company in my client's structure is an 'accommodating party' and that two group companies are 'connected persons'. What do those words actually mean and what follows if they are made out?
  Section 99 says that in determining whether a tax benefit exists, connected persons may be treated as one and the same person, an accommodating party may be disregarded, an accommodating party and any other party may be treated as one and the same person, and the arrangement may be considered or looked through by disregarding any corporate structure. 'Accommodating party' is defined in section 97(3) — a party whose main purpose in participating, directly or indirectly and in whole or in part, is to obtain a tax benefit for the assessee, whether or not it is a connected person; 'connected person' is defined at length in section 102(4), with a twenty per cent 'substantial interest' test in section 102(8).
• Statutory position — s.102: "tax benefit", "arrangement", "step", "party" and "benefit" — the definitions that decide whether Chapter X-A can start at all CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The department says I obtained a "tax benefit" from an "arrangement". Where are those words defined, how wide are they, and does an increase in my carried-forward loss count?
  Section 102 is the definition section for the whole Chapter, and its two most important entries are drafted as wide as they could be. "Tax benefit" in s.102(10) is an INCLUSIVE definition — the section says "includes" — and its six sub-clauses cover a reduction, avoidance or deferral of tax or other amount payable under the Act; an increase in a refund; the same two things where they arise as a result of a tax treaty; a reduction in total income; and an increase in loss — each of them "in the relevant previous year or any other previous year". An increase in loss therefore is a tax benefit even in a year in which no tax was payable at all. "Arrangement" in s.102(1) means "any step in, or a part or whole of, any transaction, operation, scheme, agreement or understanding, whether enforceable or not", and includes the alienation of property in it, and "step" in s.102(9) includes "a measure or an action, particularly one of a series taken in order to deal with or achieve a particular thing or object in the arrangement".
• Statutory position — s.95: the gateway into Chapter X-A, the years it reaches, and the Explanation that lets the department attack one STEP of an otherwise genuine transaction CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer has written that he proposes to invoke Chapter X-A. Which provision actually gives him that power, from which assessment year does it bite, and can he pick on a single step of a transaction that as a whole was done for real commercial reasons?
  Section 95(1) is the gateway, and it does two things: it opens with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act", so Chapter X-A overrides the rest of the Act, and it allows an arrangement to be "declared to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement" with the tax consequences then determined under the Chapter. Section 95(2) confines the whole Chapter to "any assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2018" — that is AY 2018-19 onwards, and nothing earlier. The Explanation is the sting: the Chapter "may be applied to any step in, or a part of, the arrangement as they are applicable to the arrangement", so the officer does not have to condemn your whole transaction; he can isolate one step inside it.
• Statutory position — s.96: what makes an arrangement impermissible — the main-purpose test, the four tainted elements, and the s.96(2) presumption that shifts the burden onto you CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Commissioner's notice under s.144BA(2) says my arrangement is an impermissible avoidance arrangement. What exactly does the Revenue have to establish, and who has to prove what?
  Section 96(1) is a two-limb test and BOTH limbs must be satisfied. The arrangement must be one "the main purpose of which is to obtain a tax benefit", AND it must additionally have at least one of four tainted elements — rights or obligations not ordinarily created between persons dealing at arm's length; misuse or abuse of the provisions of the Act; lacking or deemed to lack commercial substance under s.97, in whole or in part; or being entered into or carried out by means or in a manner not ordinarily employed for bona fide purposes. Section 96(2) then supplies a presumption that works against you: if the main purpose of a STEP in, or a part of, the arrangement is to obtain a tax benefit, the whole arrangement is presumed to have been entered into for that main purpose — "unless it is proved to the contrary by the assessee" — even though the main purpose of the whole arrangement was not a tax benefit.
• Statutory position — s.97: when an arrangement is DEEMED to lack commercial substance, what round trip financing means, and the three facts that s.97(4) says are never sufficient CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Commissioner says my structure "lacks commercial substance". What does that phrase actually mean in the Act, and does it help me that the structure has been in place for years, has paid tax, and has a normal exit route?
  Lack of commercial substance is not an open-ended commercial judgment; s.97(1) is a closed list of four deeming limbs. An arrangement is DEEMED to lack commercial substance if (a) its substance or effect as a whole is inconsistent with, or differs significantly from, the form of its individual steps or a part; or (b) it involves or includes round trip financing, an accommodating party, elements that have the effect of offsetting or cancelling each other, or a transaction conducted through one or more persons that disguises the value, location, source, ownership or control of the funds; or (c) it involves the location of an asset, of a transaction or of the place of residence of a party without any substantial commercial purpose other than obtaining a tax benefit; or (d) it does not have a significant effect on the business risks or net cash flows of any party apart from the effect attributable to the tax benefit. Section 97(4) then says in terms that three matters — how long the arrangement has existed, the fact that taxes were paid under it, and the fact that it provides an exit route — "may be relevant but shall not be sufficient".

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.