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
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❯❯
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
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    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