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
    Cash Transaction Penalties under Indian Tax Law : Clause 450 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sectio...
    Evolution of Penalty Provisions for Failure to Collect Tax at Source : Clause 449 of the Income Tax ...
    Practical and Legal Implications of Penalty for TDS Defaults in Complince under Indian Income Tax La...
    Practical Dimensions of Penalty for Non-Submission of Accountant's Report in Indian Taxation : Claus...
    Audit Compliance and Penalty Provisions under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 446 of the Income Tax B...
    Penalties for defeating the policy objective of fostering genuine charitable activities by Related P...
    Penalizing False Accounting Entries : Clause 444 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271AAD of ...
    Legal and Practical Dimensions of Penalties for Undisclosed Income in Indian Taxation : Clause 443 o...
    Legal Framework for Documentation Penalties under Indian Tax Law : Clause 442 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-maintenance of Books under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 441 of the Inco...
    Immunity from Penalty and Prosecution in Income Tax Law : Clause 440 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Penalty Provisions for Under-Reporting and Misreporting of Income under Income-tax Law : Clause 439 ...
    Section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : Clause 189 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Explanation to Se...
    Evolution of Cash Transaction Controls in Indian Tax Law : Clause 188 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Change in India's Digital Payment Mandate : Clause 187 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 269S...
    Restricting High-Value Cash Transactions in India : Clause 186 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Restricting Cash Transaction Regime : Clause 185 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 269SS of Incom...
    Defining the High Court for Tax Matters : Clause 374 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 269 of...
    Monetary Limits of Filing of Appeals by Income-tax Authorities : Clause 373 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Continuity and Evolution of computation of limitation periods for filing appeals or applications in ...
❯❯
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
    Cash transaction penalty: acceptance of prohibited loans or deposits triggers penalty equal to amount received under the new clause.
    Clause 450 imposes a penalty equal to the amount of any loan, deposit or specified sum taken or accepted in contravention of the substantive prohibition, centralizes authority to impose that penalty with the Assessing Officer, and leaves key interpretive and procedural questions-such as the definition of "specified sum", the availability of a reasonable cause exception, and limitation and hearing procedures-to be clarified elsewhere in the Bill or by administrative guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to collect tax at source: Assessing Officer may impose penalty equal to uncollected tax, discretion noted.
    Clause 449 provides that any person required under Chapter XIX-B who fails to collect the whole or part of tax may be liable to a penalty equal to the amount of tax not collected, with the Assessing Officer empowered to impose that penalty; the clause covers total and partial failures, fixes the penalty quantum as equal to the uncollected tax, and does not expressly provide a reasonable cause exception.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source: equal to unpaid tax, imposed at Assessing Officer's discretion.
    Clause 448 penalises failure to deduct, pay, or ensure payment of tax at source under Chapter XIX-B and specified notes, imposing a penalty equal to the tax unpaid and vesting discretion to impose that penalty in the Assessing Officer; the clause covers partial failures and obligations to ensure payment but is silent on an explicit reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to furnish accountant's report under section 172 may attract fixed statutory penalty; procedural safeguards need clarification.
    Clause 447 authorises the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed penalty of one lakh rupees for failure to furnish an accountant's report as required by section 172; the provision mirrors Section 271BA in structure and intent, emphasising a uniform fixed penalty to enforce documentary compliance, while raising issues about the scope of section 172, the absence of an explicit reasonable cause exception, and procedural safeguards such as show cause notice and opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Audit compliance penalty: failure to obtain or file mandated audit reports may attract a capped percentage-based sanction.
    Clause 446 penalizes failure to obtain a mandatory audit or to furnish the audit report under s.63 by authorizing the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the lesser of a percentage of total sales, turnover or gross receipts for the relevant tax year(s) or a fixed monetary cap, thereby targeting both non-audit and non-filing conduct and centralizing enforcement discretion under a proportional, capped sanction.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for diversion of charitable funds: escalating sanctions for benefits to related persons under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 445 links penalties to the charging of "specified income" under section 337 where a registered non-profit applies income for the benefit of a related person. It covers direct and indirect benefits, vests discretion in the Assessing Officer to impose a monetary penalty during proceedings, prescribes an equal-amount penalty for the first violation and a doubled penalty for subsequent violations, and does not require proof of mens rea.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for false accounting entries: false or omitted entries made to evade tax attract a penalty equal to the entry amount.
    Penalty for false or omitted accounting entries applies where entries are material to computation of total income and made with intent to evade tax; penalty equals the aggregate amount of the false or omitted entry, extends to anyone who causes such entries, and covers use or intention to use forged documents, invoices without actual supply/receipt, and invoices involving non existent persons, with Assessing Officer and specified appellate officers empowered to impose the sanction.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for undisclosed income: fixed tax-based sanction added to assessed tax for unexplained income, with limited exceptions.
    Clause 443 authorises tax officers and appellate commissioners to impose a fixed additional penalty on tax computed in respect of income determined from specified unexplained sources, while exempting amounts voluntarily disclosed and taxed within the relevant year, and barring a duplicate penalty under an alternate penalty provision; procedural safeguards in designated procedural sections apply to the imposition and appeal of the penalty.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Documentation penalties: new clause preserves ad valorem and flat penalties, reinforcing strict transfer pricing compliance for cross border transactions.
    Clause 442 establishes penalties for failures to maintain, report, or furnish accurate documentation for international transactions and specified domestic transactions, comprising an ad valorem penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) for non maintenance, non reporting or incorrect information, and a prescribed authority's power to levy a flat monetary penalty for failure to furnish required information; the provision largely mirrors Section 271AA but omits an explicit "without prejudice" clause and does not address reasonable cause or proportionality concerns.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Record keeping obligation triggers fixed penalty for non maintenance or non retention of prescribed tax records, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 441 imposes a fixed penalty for failure to keep, maintain, or retain prescribed books of account and documents as required by the statutory reference provision, and vests authority to impose the penalty in the Assessing Officer and appellate officers. The clause applies an objective standard of liability, omits an explicit savings clause preserving other penalty provisions, and contains no express exception for reasonable cause, raising issues of cumulative penalties and proportionality.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Immunity from penalty: mechanism to obtain protection from penalty and prosecution when tax is paid and no appeal is filed.
    Clause 440 permits an assessee to apply for immunity from penalty and prosecution where tax and interest under the assessment/reassessment order are paid within the notice period and no appeal is filed; the application must be made within one month in prescribed form, the AO must decide within three months after giving opportunity of being heard, immunity is granted only after the appeal period expires and excludes cases of aggravated defaults, and an order on immunity is final and bars appeal or revision if accepted.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for under-reporting: preserves formula-based computation and differential rates for misreporting, and procedural safeguards.
    Clause 439 establishes a formula-based penalty framework empowering a defined Competent Authority to impose penalties for seven specified scenarios of under-reporting, prescribes quantified computation methods for first assessments, reassessments and deemed income, preserves exceptions for bona fide explanations and documented transfer pricing adjustments, requires written orders and bars double penalisation, and differentiates penalties by imposing a higher sanction for misreporting defined by a specified list of misrepresentation and suppression acts.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Mode of payment restrictions for property linked receipts expanded to include any monetary receipt related to proposed transfers.
    Clause 189 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 defines "banking company", certain rural finance institutions, "specified sum", and "specified advance" to frame non cash payment rules for receipts and repayments linked to immovable property. It mirrors the Explanation to Section 269T in several respects-notably the definition of "specified advance"-but adds an explicit "specified sum" to capture any monetary receipt related to a proposed property transfer whether or not the transfer occurs, thereby potentially broadening regulatory coverage and creating interpretative issues where payments overlap the two terms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Mode of repayment restrictions: non cash repayment mandated for covered loans and advances to ensure traceability and compliance.
    Clause 188 mandates non cash repayment of loans, deposits and specified advances by account payee cheque, bank draft, electronic clearing or other prescribed electronic modes when the amount or the aggregate held by the person equals or exceeds twenty thousand rupees, with a higher threshold of two lakh rupees for primary agricultural credit societies and related rural banks. It exempts repayments to Government and regulated banking or notified entities, allows intra branch crediting by banks, broadly defines "loan or deposit," covers advances related to immovable property, and emphasizes aggregation to prevent splitting transactions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Digital payment mandate requires businesses to provide prescribed electronic modes, promoting traceability and reducing cash transactions.
    Clause 187 mandates that every person carrying on business whose sales, turnover, or gross receipts exceed the prescribed monetary threshold in the immediately preceding tax year shall provide facilities for accepting payment through prescribed electronic modes, in addition to any other electronic modes offered; rule-making will specify the required modes, and compliance carries operational, record-keeping and penal implications while raising interpretive issues around prescription, group aggregation, and regulatory harmonization.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Restriction on high value cash transactions: mandatory use of prescribed banking or electronic modes to enhance traceability and compliance.
    Clause 186 prohibits receipt of cash at or above the specified monetary threshold except through account payee cheque, bank draft, electronic clearing, or other prescribed electronic modes, applying the ban to aggregated daily receipts from the same person, single transactions, and transactions linked to a single event or occasion; exemptions include government and specified banking entities and further classes as notified by the Central Government, while interpretive ambiguities and delegated rulemaking on permissible modes may require administrative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Cash transaction restriction: acceptance of loans, deposits and advances must be made only through traceable banking or electronic modes.
    Clause 185 prohibits accepting loans, deposits or specified sums in cash when the current transaction, the unpaid balance of prior transactions with the same person, or their aggregate reaches the prescribed threshold, and permits receipt only by account-payee cheque, account-payee bank draft, electronic clearing through a bank account or other prescribed electronic modes; exceptions cover the Government, specified banking and statutory entities, notified bodies, a rural higher threshold for primary agricultural credit societies and a narrow agricultural income exception.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Definition of High Court clarifies appellate forum for States and Union Territories in tax law, reducing jurisdictional ambiguity.
    Clause 374 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, provides a comprehensive, enumerated definition of "High Court" by designating the specific High Court applicable to each State and Union Territory, updating nomenclature, reflecting post reorganization realities (including Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh), and replacing reliance on piecemeal adaptation orders; this consolidation reduces jurisdictional uncertainty, aids administrative and judicial efficiency, and highlights the need for legislative updates or transitional provisions if future territorial changes occur.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary limits on tax appeals: Board may set filing thresholds; non filing does not amount to departmental acquiescence.
    Clause 373 authorises the Board to fix monetary limits and other criteria for filing appeals by income tax authorities, permits the Board to revise those limits, and provides that non filing of an appeal in one case does not preclude filing in other years or against other assessees. The clause bars assessees from claiming departmental acquiescence due to non filing and directs tribunals and courts to have regard to the Board's instructions and the circumstances of filing or non filing while leaving the weight of those instructions to judicial discretion.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of time to obtain copy suspends limitation for appeals and applications when copy not provided, subject to diligence.
    Clause 372 excludes the day of service and, where a copy was not provided with the notice, the time required to obtain that copy from computation of limitation for appeals and applications; the exclusion is subject to the assessee's reasonable diligence and requires documentary proof of application and receipt, with electronic service and portal access raising specific interpretive issues.

    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