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
    Evolution of Executive Scheme-Making Powers in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 532 of the Income Tax ...
    Withdrawal of Statutory Approvals under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 529 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Legal Perspectives on Condonation of Delay in Income Tax Approvals : Clause 528 of Income Tax Bill, ...
    Executive Discretion and Tax Incentives in India's Mineral Oil Sector : Clause 527 of the Income Tax...
    Immunity and Jurisdictional Bar in Tax Administration : Clause 526 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Authorisation and Assessment in Multi-Person Search Cases : Clause 525 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Rebuttable Presumptions in Tax Searches : Clause 524 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292C o...
    Deeming Service of Notice in Tax Proceedings Under Income Tax Law : Clause 523 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice : Clause 522 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292B of...
    Exclusion of Probationary Relief for Tax Offenders : Clause 521 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Jurisdictional Thresholds for Tax Offence Trials : Clause 520 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Immunity from Prosecution under Income Tax Law : Clause 519 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Practical Impact of Indemnity Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 518 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Legal Mandate for Receipts in Indian Tax Law : Clause 517 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 2...
    Evolution of Rounding Off Provisions regarding tax payable in Indian Tax Law : Clause 516 of the Inc...
    Legal Framework of Rounding Off Total Income in India tax Law : Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    The Right of Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 515 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Analysis of Registered Valuer Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 513 of the Income Ta...
    Public Disclosure of Tax Offenders : Clause 512 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 287 of the ...
    Legal Framework for International Group Reporting : Clause 511 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
❯❯
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 RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to frame schemes expands executive authority to enable faceless, technology-driven tax administration and modify statutory application.
    Clause 532 grants the Central Government authority to make schemes for any purpose of the Act to enhance efficiency, transparency and accountability by eliminating taxpayer interface and optimising resources, and to issue notifications modifying the application of any provision of the Act to give effect to such schemes; it also permits amendment of schemes under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and requires that notifications be laid before each House of Parliament.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Withdrawal of approvals: authorities may rescind statutory tax approvals after recording reasons and giving a fair hearing.
    Clause 529 authorises the Central Government, the Board, or income-tax authorities to withdraw any approval under the Act at any time after recording reasons and giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, even if the enabling provision lacks an express withdrawal clause. The provision mandates recorded reasons and a hearing but leaves "approval" undefined, does not specify substantive grounds for withdrawal, and does not prescribe a limitation period, which may raise uncertainty and prompt judicial scrutiny of procedural adequacy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: authority may excuse late tax approvals for sufficient cause, subject to discretionary review and safeguards.
    Clause 528 permits the Central Government or the Board to condone delays in obtaining approvals required before a specified date under the Act for "sufficient cause," vesting discretionary power in the same authority to excuse late applications across a broad range of approvals while leaving "sufficient cause," procedural steps, time limits and appeal mechanisms undefined.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Executive discretion in tax exemptions for mineral oil sector enables tailored fiscal relief to investors and service providers.
    Clause 527 vests the Central Government with discretionary power to grant exemptions, reductions or other modifications in income tax for persons engaged in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils, including operators, service providers, suppliers and their employees; notifications must be laid before Parliament and key terms like "mineral oil" and "status" are defined or cross referenced in the Bill.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Bar on civil suits prevents civil court challenges to tax proceedings, preserving exclusive statutory remedies and good faith immunity.
    The provision bars any civil suit to set aside or modify "any proceeding taken or order made" under the Act and grants immunity to the Government and its officers for acts done or intended to be done in good faith, channeling challenges to the statutory appellate and revisionary framework while preserving writ review for ultra vires, mala fide, or constitutional breaches.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Authorisation for multi-person searches: single authorisations allowed, but assessments must be made separately for each person.
    Clause 525 permits a single search or requisition authorisation to name multiple persons without requiring separate instruments, and provides that such joint naming does not, by itself, constitute authorisation against an AOP or BOI. Notwithstanding a consolidated authorisation, assessment or reassessment must be made separately in the name of each person mentioned, preserving individualized tax liability determinations while allowing administrative consolidation of search procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rebuttable presumption in tax searches shifts evidentiary burden to taxpayers and explicitly covers virtual digital assets.
    Clause 524 establishes a rebuttable presumption that items found in search or survey-books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery, other valuables and virtual digital assets-belong to the person in whose possession they were found; that contents of books and documents are true; that signatures and handwriting are authentic; and that stamped, executed or attested documents were duly executed, with identical presumptions applying to items requisitioned to officers as if discovered in a search.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Deeming validity of notice: participation or cooperation bars later objections unless raised before assessment completion.
    Clause 523 creates a deeming fiction that an assessee's appearance in proceedings or co-operation in an inquiry shall be treated as valid and timely service of any statutory notice, and it precludes the assessee from later objecting that the notice was not served, not timely served, or served improperly; however, this preclusion does not apply where the assessee raises the objection before completion of the assessment or reassessment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Substantial compliance preserves tax proceedings despite minor procedural errors when the instrument fulfils legislative intent.
    Clause 522 preserves the validity of returns, assessments, notices, summonses and other proceedings despite clerical, typographical or similar procedural defects, provided the document or action is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purposes of the Act; it does not cure defects that go to jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or breaches of natural justice, and mirrors Section 292B to maintain continuity of judicial interpretation and application.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of probationary relief bars adult tax offenders from probationary provisions, preserving minors' exception and updating criminal code reference.
    The clause mandates that the Probation of Offenders Act and the analogous provision in the new criminal procedure code shall not apply to persons convicted under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, except for those under eighteen, thereby removing judicial discretion for adult tax offenders, updating statutory references, and preserving a minors' exception while raising procedural questions on age determination and scope.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional threshold: income tax offences must be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, altering forum nomenclature.
    Clause 520 mandates that no court inferior to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, creating a uniform jurisdictional threshold for all tax offences. The provision modernizes terminology compared with Section 292 of the 1961 Act by omitting presidency magistrates, aligning with the CrPC framework and metropolitan magistrates' equivalence, while leaving potential ambiguities about special statute courts and transitional application. Its practical effect is to require complaints be filed before competent magistrates and to enable jurisdictional challenges where proceedings are instituted in inferior forums.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Immunity from prosecution: conditional grants require full and true disclosure and are revocable if falsehood or concealment is found.
    Immunity from prosecution allows the Central Government to grant discretionary, conditional immunity to persons concerned in concealment of income or tax evasion in exchange for a full and true disclosure, with written reasons required for the grant; acceptance limits prosecution and penalty to the scope specified, while failure to fully comply permits the government to record a finding and withdraw immunity, rendering the person liable to trial and penalty as if immunity had never been granted.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Indemnity for withholding agents protects deductors from civil claims when acting lawfully under the tax statute.
    Clause 518 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 provides a statutory indemnity for persons who deduct, retain, or pay tax in pursuance of the tax statute in respect of income belonging to another person, serving as a defence against civil claims by the income recipient where the agent acts lawfully; the protection is conditional on actions being within the scope of the statute and leaves unresolved issues about consequential losses, claim procedures, and interaction with other legal remedies.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Receipt obligation: mandatory issuance of receipts for any tax money paid or recovered, securing payment evidence and taxpayer protection.
    The provision mandates that a receipt shall be given for any money paid or recovered under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, covering voluntary payments and enforced recoveries under the Act. The clause is mandatory but silent on form, content, timing, issuing authority, mode of delivery, and consequences for non-issuance; subordinated rules and administrative practice-including electronic acknowledgments-are expected to fill these operational gaps. The receipt serves as an acknowledgement and evidentiary record rather than an automatic discharge of liability.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rounding off rules: ignore paise then round to nearest ten rupees, making the rounded figure legally operative.
    The provision applies rounding to computed total income and to amounts payable or refundable by first ignoring paise and then rounding the rupee amount to the nearest multiple of ten rupees-rounding up where the units digit is five or more and rounding down where it is less than five-and declares the rounded amount to be the deemed operative total income or amount payable or refundable for all purposes under the Act.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rounding of tax amounts: unified rule mandates nearest multiple rounding for total income, payable and refundable amounts.
    Clause 516 prescribes a mandatory two-step rounding mechanism: ignore any paise, then round the rupee amount to the nearest multiple of ten-rounding up if the last digit is five or more and down if less than five-and deems the rounded figure to be the amount of total income, amount payable, or amount refundable for all purposes under the Act.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of representation: statutory authorisation and disqualification framework balancing access to representation with safeguards.
    The statute permits an assessee to appear by an authorised representative across all proceedings while preserving mandatory personal attendance for oath examination; it defines eligible representatives (including professionals, bank officers, relatives, legacy practitioners and any persons as prescribed), enumerates exhaustive exclusions and disqualifications to prevent conflicts of interest, distinguishes disciplinary regimes for professionals and nonprofessionals (with Rule 52 designating prescribed tax authorities to disqualify nonprofessionals), and mandates procedural safeguards including a hearing and appeal mechanism, while carrying forward prior disqualifications.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Registered valuer representation enables technical valuation expertise in tax proceedings, subject to personal-examination exception and updated registration framework.
    Clause 513 grants an assessee the discretionary right to attend valuation-related proceedings before income-tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal through a "registered valuer," excludes cases where personal attendance is required for examination on oath or affirmation, and defines "registered valuer" by reference to section 514 of the Bill, thereby creating a self-contained regime that modernizes registration, oversight, and professional standards for valuers.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Public disclosure of tax offenders can deter non-compliance while imposing reputational consequences under discretionary publication powers.
    Clause 512 empowers the Central Government to publish names and particulars of assessees when it considers such publication necessary or expedient in the public interest, subject to a safeguard that penalty-related publication await exhaustion or non-pursuit of appellate remedies, and permits publication of partners, directors and other associated persons if circumstances justify it. The clause modernises language and cross-references from Section 287 of the 1961 Act while preserving substantive continuity, raising interpretive concerns about the breadth of "particulars" and the subjectivity of "public interest."
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Country-by-Country reporting requires multinational groups to submit consolidated jurisdictional tax and economic data for risk assessment.
    Clause 511 mandates Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting by parent entities or alternate reporting entities resident in India and requires Indian constituent entities to notify the tax authority of the parent or ARE. It prescribes report contents-aggregate jurisdictional financial and economic indicators, constituent identification, and business activities-provides a secondary filing route where the parent's jurisdiction lacks filing or exchange, allows designation of a single Indian filer, sets a revenue threshold for applicability, and grants verification powers to the authority, with procedural details to be prescribed.

    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