TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Comparison of section 376 "Procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or Supreme Court." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore a High Court or the Supreme Court. It matters to taxpayers, the Department and appellate authorities (Assessing Officers, Principal Commissioners/Commissioners, Appellate Tribunal and High Courts/Supreme Court). Effective date: Not stated in the document. Background & Scope Statutory hooks: Clause 376 (Bill) sets out special provisions to avoid repetitive appeals, interacting with sections 362, 365 and 367 of the Bill (corresponding appellate provisions). The clause addresses situations where a question of law in the relevant case is identical to a question pending in another case and that question is the subject of appellate proceedings before a High Court or the Supreme Court (including Special Leave Petitions). Definitions: The cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er case becomes final. That application must be filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of the order from the lower appellate authorities. If the assessee accepts identity of questions, the Assessing Officer is to make the application; if no acceptance is received, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall proceed as per section 362(2) or 365(2)(b). If the earlier favourable order (to the assessee in the other case) is not in conformity with the final decision in the other case when that final decision arrives, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may direct an appeal; departmental appeals under sub-section (5) must be filed within 60 days to the Appellate Tribunal or 120 days to the High Court from the date on which the high....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeds with appeal under the usual appeal provisions (section 362(2) or section 365(2)(b)). No other carve-outs, monetary thresholds, or special categories are specified. Not stated in the document: any test or standard for determining "identity" of questions beyond the plain wording "is identical." Illustrations * Example 1: Taxpayer A receives an order in favour of the taxpayer from the Commissioner (Appeals) on an issue of classification of income. The department concludes that the same question arises in another taxpayer B's case and that B's case is pending before the High Court u/s 365. The collegium may direct that no departmental appeal be filed in A's case at that stage; the Assessing Officer may be directed to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Document 2) refers only to pendency "before the jurisdictional High Court u/s 365 or the Supreme Court in an appeal u/s 367 or in a Special Leave Petition under article 136," without explicit cross-reference to corresponding provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. * Additional enumerated procedural loci: The Act explicitly mentions "a reference u/s 256 of Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Jurisdictional High Court or in a reference before the Supreme Court u/s 261 of Income-tax Act, 1961," thereby capturing reference proceedings under the earlier statute; the Bill does not expressly include references under the 1961 Act. * Wording on prescribed form: The Bill uses the phrase "in such form as prescribed," while the Act uses "in such form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeals or references) arising under the Income-tax Act, 1961. This reduces risk of inconsistent departmental litigation and avoids duplication across regimes (legacy and reformed). * Explicit tie of limitation periods to communication date (Act): Practical effect - clearer trigger for limitation: by expressly linking the start of the 60/120-day filing windows to the date on which the higher court's order in the "other case" is communicated to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, the Act reduces potential contention about the commencement of limitation for departmental appeals under sub-section (5). * More conventional drafting for prescription of form ("may be prescribed"): Practical effect - procedural clarity and rulemaking f....