Comparison of section 377 "Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue." 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

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revision; who is affected: taxpayers and revenue authorities dealing with assessments and transfer pricing orders. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document. Background & Scope Statutory hooks: Clause 377 sits in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and refers to (inter alia) sections 166, 241, 239, 244 and section 272 for related powers/directions. The clause covers revision of proceedings "under this Act" where an order passed by an Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer is considered by the Competent Authority to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Definitions given: "Competent Authority" (Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) and "Transfer Pricing Officer" (same meanin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ixty days. An exception allows revision at any time "to give effect to a finding or direction" of the Appellate Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court. Interpretation The text frames revision as an administrative supervisory power directed to protect revenue from orders considered erroneous and prejudicial. Procedural safeguards are embedded: hearing the assessee and making or causing inquiries. The express cross-references to Board directions (section 239) and to appellate decisions suggest interpretive guidance that compliance with higher court or Board directions is a material criterion for error. Exceptions/Provisos Temporal limitation: two years from end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed (sub-s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed of by appeal. Differences between Document 1 (Section 377, Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 377, Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) * Heading wording: Document 1's header expressly includes "Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner" in the line prefacing the section; Document 2's header says "Revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner." * Practical impact: Document 1's header more fully reflects the range of senior officers identified in the text; Document 2's shorter header could be read as less explicit though the operative clause (8)(a) in both texts defines "Competent Authority" identically. Practical impact on administration: mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t 1 defines "Transfer Pricing Officer" as having the same meaning as in section 166(17). Document 2 cross-references section 166(18). * Practical impact: potentially significant depending on the text of section 166 subsections (17) vs (18). If those subsections differ (e.g., in scope or operative definition), the Competent Authority's power may apply to a different statutory construct of "Transfer Pricing Officer." The exact effect depends on the content of section 166(17)/(18) which is Not stated in the document. Practical Implications * Compliance and risk areas: Affected taxpayers face the risk of post-assessment administrative revision where an order is considered "erroneous...prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Pract....