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
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
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
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 506 "Furnishing of information or documents by an Indian concern in certain ca...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 505 "Submission of statement by a non-resident having liaison office." between...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 500 "Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases." between the ...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 489 "Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc., in certain cases." betw...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 488 "Offences by Hindu undivided family." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 487 "Abetment of false return, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as pass...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 484 "Abetment of false return, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as pass...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 483 "Falsification of books of account or document, etc." between the Income-T...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 479 "Failure to furnish returns of income." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 478 "Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as p...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 476 "Failure to pay tax collected at source." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 476 "Failure to pay tax to credit of Central Government under Chapter XIX-B" b...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 475 "Removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property to prevent tax " b...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 470 "Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases." between the Income-Tax Act, ...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 469 "Power to reduce or waive penalty, etc., in certain cases." between the In...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 465 "Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, furnish informa...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 456 "Penalty for failure to furnish statement or information or document by an...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 455 "Penalty for furnishing inaccurate statement of financial transaction or r...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 452 "Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 187." between th...
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Comparison of section 451 "Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 186." between th...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Information-furnishing obligation: Indian concerns must produce prescribed documents when foreign interests derive value from India assets.
    An information-furnishing obligation requires an Indian concern to provide prescribed information or documents to the prescribed income-tax authority when a foreign company's or entity's shares or interests derive substantially their value from assets located in India and those assets are held, directly or indirectly, through the Indian concern; specific documents, the authority, the period and the manner of furnishing are to be specified by subordinate prescription.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting obligation for liaison offices: annual statement to tax authorities subject to deadlines and particulars as prescribed.
    Non-residents with RBI/FEMA authorised liaison offices must annually prepare and deliver to the Assessing Officer a statement of the office's activities for the tax year in such form, containing such particulars and within such period as may be prescribed, with the deadline and particulars to be specified by subordinate legislation rather than fixed in the statute.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment protects revenue during assessments, requiring competent authority approval and revocation on provision of bank guarantees.
    Clause 500 permits an Assessing Officer, with prior Competent Authority approval and by written order, to provisionally attach property during assessment, reassessment of escaped income or specified penalty proceedings; attachment follows the statutory attachment procedure and valuation by a Valuation Officer. Attachment is revocable on furnishing a scheduled bank guarantee generally equal to fair market value (or a lower guarantee if accepted); guarantees may be invoked on default. Temporal limits apply (initial six months with limited extensions) and proceeds are adjusted against existing demands with balances deposited in designated accounts.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption as to assets extended to electronic information and computer systems when tendered as prosecutorial evidence.
    The statute extends the evidentiary presumption applicable to assets, books of account and documents found in searches or taken into custody to include information in electronic form and computer systems, applying the presumptive framework when such items are tendered in evidence and qualifying that application by the phrase "so far as may be, apply"; the Act cross-references statutory definitions for electronic information and computer systems to ensure consistent meaning.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Karta liability and member culpability: members can be prosecuted regardless of Karta's due diligence defence under the revised provision.
    The provision deems the Karta guilty for offences committed by an HUF unless he proves absence of knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence; members are separately liable if the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, and the Act clarifies that such member liability applies irrespective of both the Karta's deemed guilt and his due-diligence defence.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate vicarious liability tightened: personal liability now operates notwithstanding due diligence where consent, connivance or neglect is shown.
    Section 487 creates both a deeming rule treating companies and those in charge as guilty for corporate tax offences and a separate personal-liability route making directors, managers, secretaries, officers, partners and controlling members individually culpable where an offence is committed with their consent, connivance or attributable to their neglect; a statutory defence allows persons deemed guilty to avoid liability by proving lack of knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence, but the enacted text makes the personal-liability route operate irrespective of the deeming rule and the due diligence defence.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false return: two-tier custodial penalties and fine where tax impact determines higher or lower sentencing.
    Abetment of false return criminalises abetting or inducing another to make a false tax-related account, statement or declaration where the abettor knows it is false or does not believe it to be true, and prescribes a two tier sentencing regime based on the monetary magnitude of tax, penalty or interest evaded or wilfully attempted to be evaded; textual differences between the Bill and the enacted section are limited to phrasing around liability to fine and an editorial sentence, with no observable change to imprisonment ranges or threshold.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of books: criminalises willful false entries to enable another's tax evasion, allowing prosecution without proving actual evasion.
    Section 483 proscribes falsification of books or other documents when a person wilfully makes or causes a false entry or statement, knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true, with intent to enable another to evade tax, interest or penalty; the offence carries rigorous imprisonment and fine, and it is not necessary to prove that the other person actually succeeded in evading tax.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to furnish tax returns: criminal penalties with tiered custody and limited safe harbour for late filing.
    Criminal liability is imposed for wilful failure to furnish a required return of income, with a two-tiered custodial and fine regime linked to the amount of tax evaded. A limited bar to prosecution exists where the return is subsequently furnished within the procedural time references or, for non-companies, where the residual tax shortfall after qualifying payments falls below a de minimis threshold. The scope of the safe harbour depends on the timing rules in the cross referenced procedural subsection.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful attempt to evade tax: criminalises deliberate falsification and omissions, with tiered imprisonment and fines.
    Section 478 criminalises a wilful attempt to evade tax and wilful under reporting by prescribing tiered rigorous imprisonment and fines, and it lists illustrative acts-false entries, omissions, possession of falsified books and conduct enabling evasion. The Act relocates and rephrases fine and penalty preservation language into a standalone non prejudice clause and tightens causation wording in an illustrative sub clause. Definitions of key terms and procedural or evidentiary standards are not provided in the text.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source criminalised, exposing collectors to imprisonment and fine; exception for timely remittance.
    Failure to remit to Government the tax collected at source is a penal offence punishable by imprisonment and fine, targeting persons who collect tax at source and imposing personal liability for payment to Government credit. A narrow temporal exception excludes application where payment has been made on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant statement, and the provision contains no mitigating grounds, mens rea gradation, or procedural compounding mechanisms.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit withheld tax attracts criminal liability including imprisonment and fine; safe harbour if credited before filing deadline.
    Failure to remit taxes deducted under Chapter XIX-B or required by specified Notes to the Table in section 393 constitutes a criminal offence punishable by rigorous imprisonment and fine; the offence applies where a person fails to pay amounts to the credit of the Central Government, subject to a temporal safe harbour if payment is made or credited on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant statement.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent disposition of property to frustrate tax execution now criminalised, tied specifically to a certificate drawn under section 413.
    The offence criminalises anyone who fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers any property or interest therein with intent to prevent such property or interest from being taken in execution of a certificate drawn u/s 413; punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to two years and a fine. The enacted text replaces the Bill's broader "as prescribed" formulation with a direct reference to section 413, clarifying the instrument whose execution the offence seeks to frustrate. The clause contains no exceptions, definitions of "fraudulently," or evidentiary rules.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence prevents penalties when a taxpayer proves it, expanding protection in the enacted provision.
    Section 470 bars imposition of penalties under the listed provisions where a person or assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure; it frames the exception as prevailing irrespective of anything in those provisions and places the burden of proof on the person, while not defining "reasonable cause" or prescribing standards, procedures, or timing for such proof.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary penalty waiver: voluntary pre-detection disclosure and cooperation enable administrative leniency, subject to prior approval thresholds and safeguards.
    Section 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where there is voluntary, pre detection disclosure, good faith cooperation and payment or satisfactory arrangements for tax and interest; sub section (2) contains a deeming rule for "full and true disclosure." Prior approval from a specified senior authority is required where multi year income/disclosure crosses the statutory threshold or where aggregate penalties to be waived under the hardship route exceed the threshold; once discretionary relief is granted for a person no further relief is available for other tax years. Procedural safeguards and a twelve month disposal timeline apply.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax penalties for procedural non-compliance impose fixed and daily monetary sanctions and designate imposing authorities by statute.
    Clause 465 distinguishes fixed penalties for discrete refusals or omissions from continuing daily penalties for delays or failures to furnish returns, statements, certificates or allow inspections, caps certain penalties by reference to deductible or collectible tax, allocates specified income tax officers to impose such penalties, and defines "income tax authority"; it cross references multiple substantive provisions and contains no express procedural safeguards, appeal route, or mitigation mechanism.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-furnishing by eligible investment funds may be imposed as a fixed sanction for late or missing reports.
    The provision authorises the prescribed income tax authority to direct an eligible investment fund to pay a fixed penalty of five lakh rupees where the fund fails to furnish a required statement, information or document within the time prescribed under the referenced provision; the sanction is discretionary and the text contains no exceptions, mitigation procedures or notice stages in the extract provided.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial statements made mandatory; reporting institutions face per-account liability and recovery rights from account-holders.
    Section 455 imposes a fixed penalty on persons required to furnish statements under section 508(1) for inaccurate information, failure to correct within the period under section 508(8), or non-compliance with due diligence under section 508(9). It also imposes an additional per-account liability on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies arise from false or inaccurate information furnished by account-holders, and entitles institutions to recover or retain amounts paid from those account-holders. The provision cross-references section 508 and does not set out adjudicatory or appeal procedures.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to provide electronic payment facilities imposes strict daily liability and removes statutory exception to avoid sanction.
    The provision imposes a continuing daily monetary penalty, to be levied by the Assessing Officer, for failure to provide facilities to accept payments through prescribed electronic modes; the Bill included a proviso allowing avoidance of the penalty on proof of good and sufficient reason, but the enacted text omits that proviso, leaving key definitions, evidentiary standards, and procedural modalities unspecified.
    Act RulesIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to comply: Assessing Officer may impose monetary penalty equal to sums received unless recipient proves good reasons.
    Section 451 authorises the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received by a person in contravention of the relevant statutory provision; the earlier Bill expressly allowed escape if the recipient proved "good and sufficient reasons," but the enacted text omits that proviso, leaving the ambit of any exception, standards for evaluation, and the character of assessing discretion unspecified.

    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

      Resolution Plan Approvals: The Supreme Court's Clarification on NCLT and NCLAT's Jurisdiction in Insolvency Resolution.

      14 February, 2024

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

      Reported as:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Introduction: In a defining judgment, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the jurisdictional boundaries of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This analysis ventures into the intricate details of the case, focusing on how and where the NCLT and NCLAT issued their orders, leading to a crucial legal discourse on the sanctity of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) commercial wisdom and the precise extent of judicial review permissible under the IBC.

      Background: The core of the dispute emanated from a resolution plan submitted for the insolvency resolution of a company, which triggered a debate on the valuation of the company's assets and the commercial decisions made by the CoC. The NCLT, in its order dated 01.09.2021, and the NCLAT, through its judgment dated 19.01.2022, directed a revaluation of assets, raising significant questions about their jurisdiction and the scope of their authority to alter or influence the CoC's commercial decisions.

      Analysis of Issues:

      1. NCLT and NCLAT's Orders: The NCLT's directive for asset revaluation stemmed from an application for the approval of a resolution plan. The tribunal's order placed the resolution plan in abeyance, mandating a reassessment of the corporate debtor's asset value. The NCLAT upheld this directive, reinforcing the call for a detailed asset valuation, which became a pivotal issue leading to the Supreme Court's intervention.

      2. Jurisdictional Overreach: The crux of the Supreme Court's analysis centered on whether the NCLT and NCLAT had overstepped their jurisdiction by mandating asset revaluation. The Court scrutinized the extent of the tribunals' authority under the IBC, especially in relation to interfering with the CoC's commercial judgments.

      3. Commercial Wisdom of the CoC: A significant aspect of the discussion revolved around the principle that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and generally not amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the IBC vests the CoC with the ultimate discretion to evaluate and approve resolution plans based on their assessment of the corporate debtor's value and the feasibility of the proposed resolution plan.

      Discussion and Findings:

      The Supreme Court's at the end of para 30 has noted that, "At the cost of repetition, nobody had moved before the NCLT or raised any objection challenging the Resolution Plan pending approval. Even the NCLAT has only indicated that when “figures of crores” are emerging stage-wise, “then there is no harm to look at the Expert opinion”, which the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT in this case has asked for".

      The Supreme Court's observation at the end of paragraph 30 underscores a critical aspect of judicial intervention in the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court noted that there had been no objections or challenges to the resolution plan pending approval before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by any party. This absence of objections signifies the unchallenged acceptance of the resolution plan by the stakeholders involved, highlighting the autonomy and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in making decisions regarding the insolvency resolution.

      Furthermore, the Supreme Court's reference to the NCLAT's remark about considering expert opinions when "figures of crores" are involved underlines the prudence of seeking specialized expertise in complex financial assessments. However, the Court clarifies that such an approach does not inherently mandate revaluation or reassessment of assets as directed by the NCLT in this case. Instead, the emphasis is on the limited scope of judicial review concerning the commercial decisions taken by the CoC. The NCLT's request for revaluation, as indicated, was not rooted in any substantial objection raised during the approval process, which suggests an overreach of its adjudicatory role as envisioned under the IBC.

      The Supreme Court's observation highlights the principle that the adjudicatory authorities (NCLT and NCLAT) should refrain from interfering in the commercial wisdom of the CoC, especially in the absence of any objections or challenges to the resolution plan. This restraint is crucial to maintaining the sanctity of the CoC's decisions and ensuring a smooth and efficient insolvency resolution process, free from unnecessary judicial intervention. The observation underscores the importance of respecting the specialized knowledge and decisions of financial creditors in resolving corporate insolvency, while also recognizing the role of expert opinions in assisting the adjudication process when significant financial stakes are involved.

      Conclusion:

      The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT was rooted in a fundamental principle of the IBC: the limited scope of judicial intervention in the CoC's commercial decisions. The Court elucidated that the NCLT and NCLAT, by mandating a revaluation of assets, had unduly interfered with the commercial prerogatives of the CoC. This interference was deemed beyond their jurisdiction, highlighting a misapprehension of their role as adjudicating bodies under the IBC.

      This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reasserts the autonomy of the CoC in the insolvency resolution process, delineating the boundaries of judicial review by the NCLT and NCLAT. By clarifying the jurisdictional limits of these tribunals, the Court has reinforced the IBC's intent to facilitate swift and efficient insolvency resolutions, ensuring that the commercial wisdom of the CoC remains supreme. The decision underscores the necessity of adhering to the statutory framework of the IBC, safeguarding the resolution process from unwarranted judicial overreach, and maintaining the balance between judicial oversight and commercial discretion.

       


      Full Text:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax