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
    Assessing Officer's Duty to Notify Losses : Clause 291 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 157 ...
    Statutory mechanism for the modification and revision of demand notices : Clause 290 of Income Tax B...
    Examination of Notice of Demand Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Procedural Amendments and Rectification under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 288 of Income Tax Bill,...
    Procedural Safeguards and Rectification under Indian Tax Law : Clause 287 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Reforming Assessment Timelines of assessment, reassessment, and recomputation of income : Clause 286...
    procedural aspects of assessment, reassessment, and recomputation where income has allegedly escaped...
    From Faceless Assessment to Executive Schemes : Clause 532 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Authority and Accountability in Reopening Assessments : Clause 284 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Expanding the Framework for Assessment in Consequence of Appellate Orders : Clause 283 of the Income...
    The Changing Landscape of Reassessment Notices in Indian Tax Law : Clause 282 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    The New Framework for Reassessment Notices, Balancing Revenue Powers and Taxpayer Rights : Clause 28...
    Modernizing the Reassessment Notice Regime in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 280 of the Income Tax B...
    Procedural and Substantive Shifts in Income Escaping Assessment : Clause 279 of Income Tax Bill, 202...
    Timing of Income Recognition of Compensation and Incentives : Clause 278 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Valuation of Inventory and Securities under Indian Tax Law : Clause 277 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Legal Framework and Practical Impact of Method of Accounting under Indian Income Tax : Clause 276 of...
    Comparative Legal Analysis of the DRP Mechanism : Clause 275 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sectio...
    Procedures and Legal Safeguards of "impermissible avoidance arrangements" (IAAs) : Clause 274 of the...
    Future of Faceless Assessment :Clause 273 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 144B of the Incom...
❯❯
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
    Intimation of loss: AO must issue written notification to enable carry forward and set-off of assessed losses.
    Clause 291 requires the Assessing Officer to notify the assessee by written order of the amount of loss computed for specified loss heads where a loss is established during assessment and is eligible for carry forward and set-off under the Bill; the written notification is the formal basis for claiming loss benefits in subsequent years, while the clause omits an express timeline, remedies for non-notification, and explicit treatment of appeal or rectification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Modification of tax demand notices: AO must revise demands to reflect insolvency orders and subsequent appellate modifications.
    Clause 290 requires the Assessing Officer to serve a modified demand notice treated as a demand under the restructured Act where an earlier demand is reduced by an order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, covering tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum, and mandates further revision if the insolvency order is altered on appeal.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Notice of demand: modernised formal notice and deferment for start up share compensation, aligning tax timing with liquidity events.
    Notice of demand is the statutory precondition for recovery: Clause 289(1) mandates issuance in a prescribed form for any payable sum following an order; Clause 289(2) deems certain system-generated intimations equivalent to notices to streamline automated recovery; Clause 289(3) defers tax on specified securities or sweat equity for eligible start-up employees until defined liquidity or employment-trigger events, thereby aligning tax payment timing with cash realization.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification of assessments: new provision expands AO authority to amend orders for subsequent events and compliance.
    Clause 288 consolidates and prescribes time-bound powers for Assessing Officers to amend assessment orders when subsequent judicial, administrative or factual events render original assessments incorrect, covering partner/AOP adjustments, recomputation for carry-forward losses, capital gains recharacterisation, foreign tax credit, TDS credit timing, transfer pricing amendments and related categories, with generally four-year limitation periods and an emphasis on digital procedural integration.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record: updated authority scope, procedural safeguards, and prescribed timelines ensure corrective relief.
    Clause 287 empowers income-tax authorities to rectify mistakes apparent from the record by amending orders and specified intimations, subject to the exclusion of matters already considered in appeal or revision. Rectification may be initiated suo motu or on application, but any amendment increasing liability requires prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard and must be made by written order. Reductions of liability trigger refund obligations, increases trigger prescribed demand notices, and the power is constrained by a prescribed limitation period and a statutory timeline for disposal of applications.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for tax assessments clarified: tabular framework sets fixed periods, exclusions and minimum residual time for authorities.
    Reform replaces narrative limitation provisions with a tabular, scenario-based regime specifying trigger dates and fixed completion periods-generally one year for routine assessments and reassessments-with special shorter windows for modifications. The draft adds a twelve-month extension for transfer pricing references, an exhaustive list of periods to be excluded from limitation computations (stays, reopenings, treaty exchanges, GAAR references, valuation reports, advance rulings, search handovers, etc.), and safeguards ensuring minimum residual time for authorities, end-of-month extensions, and abatement/revival protections to preserve procedural continuity.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax rate parity: reassessment must use original-year rates, allowing dropping of proceedings if no extra liability.
    Clause 285 requires tax in assessments, reassessments or recomputations for escaped income to be charged at the rates that would have applied had the income been originally assessed; allows the Assessing Officer to drop reassessment proceedings if the assessee demonstrates that inclusion of the alleged escaped income would not increase tax liability and that the original assessment was not impugned under specified appellate or revision provisions; and bars the assessee from reopening matters concluded by certain specified orders once a claim to drop proceedings is made.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Executive power to frame tax administration schemes may reshape processes while raising delegation and legal certainty concerns.
    Clause 532 empowers the Central Government to notify schemes for any purpose under the Act to eliminate taxpayer-authority interface and optimize resources; it authorises modification or suspension of statutory provisions by notification to implement schemes, permits amendment of existing schemes for transitional continuity, and requires notifications be laid before Parliament, thereby enabling broad administrative reconfiguration through subordinate legislation while raising delegation, transparency, and legal certainty concerns.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Sanction authority centralization for reopening assessments shifts approval to Additional/Joint Commissioners, reducing prior higher level oversight.
    Clause 284 appoints Additional Commissioners, Additional Directors, Joint Commissioners, or Joint Directors as the sole authorities to grant sanction for notices under sections 280 and 281, replacing the earlier tiered sanction regime. It removes temporal thresholds and higher level approvals formerly applied to older or complex cases, centralizes decision making, omits explanatory and delegation provisions present in the prior framework, and may therefore streamline administration while raising concerns about reduced oversight, interpretive ambiguity, and possible increased litigation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Giving effect to appellate findings: reassessment notices may issue despite limitation, subject to safeguards preventing reopening time barred years.
    Clause 283 (Income Tax Bill, 2025) and Section 150 (Income tax Act, 1961) permit issuance of assessment, reassessment or recomputation notices to give effect to a finding or direction in appellate, revisional or judicial orders, explicitly including tribunals and Approving Panel directions in the 2025 Bill. Both provisions preserve a limitation safeguard: notices cannot be issued if, when the original order (or reference to the Approving Panel) was made, the relevant year's assessment was already time barred. Notices must show a direct nexus to the operative finding or direction and remain subject to procedural requirements.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation periods for reassessment notices extended and a minimum cooling-off period introduced, retaining high-value reopening threshold.
    Clause 282 restructures limitation periods for notices under sections 280 and 281 by extending both standard and extended windows for reopening, retaining a high-value threshold that requires the Assessing Officer to possess books, documents or other evidence of substantial escapement, and by introducing a mandatory minimum cooling-off period before any notice may be issued; it does not explicitly replicate earlier exclusions for time spent in show-cause proceedings, court stays, or special provisions for foreign assets, creating potential interpretive gaps.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-notice hearing requirement: show cause with disclosed information, supervisory approval required before reassessment notices.
    Clause 281 requires that where the AO has information suggesting income has escaped assessment, the AO must serve a show cause notice accompanied by that information, allow the assessee to reply within the period specified, and, after considering the record and any reply, obtain prior approval of the specified authority before passing an order on whether to issue a notice under section 280. The clause omits explicit timelines, does not define the specified authority within the clause, and provides broader exceptions to the pre-notice requirement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notice reform: information-driven reopening with prescribed timelines and mandatory higher-level approval to ensure procedural safeguards.
    Clause 280 requires the AO to issue a notice with a copy of the relevant order before reassessment, sets a maximum three-month period to furnish a prescribed, verified return, treats timely returns as equivalent to original returns while disallowing that status for belated filings, mandates that issuance be predicated on "information" suggesting escapement, and requires prior approval of a specified authority where information derives from centralized schemes, Approving Panel directions, or judicial/quasi-judicial orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment powers expand to permit assessment of escaped income and collateral issues even where certain procedural steps were missed.
    Clause 279 empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income and recompute losses, depreciation and other allowances where income escaping assessment is identified, substitutes "tax year" for "assessment year," and, while making AO's powers subject to sections 280-286, permits assessment of other issues that emerge during proceedings even if specified procedural sections were not complied with, thereby prioritising substantive tax determination over technical procedural infirmities.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Timing of income recognition: interest on compensation taxed on receipt; escalation claims taxed on reasonable certainty of realisation.
    Clause 278 deems interest on compensation or enhanced compensation taxable in the tax year of actual receipt, treats escalation claims and export incentives as income when reasonable certainty of realisation is achieved, and taxes specified incomes under section 2(49)(w) on receipt if not earlier charged, thereby aligning taxability with receipt or demonstrable certainty and aiming to prevent timing gaps while leaving factual application issues like allocation and evidentiary standards to further guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Inventory valuation rules require ICDS aligned costing, inclusion of statutory levies, and category wise securities valuation for tax computation.
    Inventory and securities for tax purposes must be valued in accordance with ICDS: inventory at the lower of actual cost or net realisable value, purchases, sales and inventory adjusted to include any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred to bring goods or services to present location and condition; illiquid or unquoted securities at actual cost and regularly quoted securities at the lower of cost or NRV, with securities compared category wise and special treatment for scheduled banks and public financial institutions subject to prudential guidelines.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Method of accounting: mandatory consistency and binding tax standards lead to AO power to assess by best judgment.
    Clause 276 permits either the cash or mercantile system for computing income provided the system is regularly followed, authorises the Central Government to notify binding Income Computation and Disclosure Standards for classes of assessees or income, and empowers the Assessing Officer to disregard accounts and make a best judgment assessment where accounts are incorrect or incomplete, the accounting method is not regularly followed, or notified ICDS are not applied.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Panel mechanism: statutory draft-order review with binding, reasoned directions and strict timelines for tax variations.
    Clause 275 establishes a DRP mechanism requiring the AO to forward draft assessment orders with prejudicial variations to eligible assessees; assessees have thirty days to accept or object. The DRP, a collegium of three senior officers, may issue written, reasoned directions (confirming, reducing, or enhancing variations) within nine months; such directions are binding on the AO. The clause updates cross-references, vests rule-making power in the Board, and excludes specified proceedings and persons, while omitting an explicit statutory scheme for faceless DRP proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Impermissible avoidance arrangements: GAAR procedure mandates reference, Approving Panel review, and binding directions with safeguards.
    Clause 274 creates a multi-stage GAAR procedure: the Assessing Officer may refer suspected impermissible avoidance arrangements to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, who must notify the assessee and allow objections; absent or unsatisfactory responses permit directions or escalation to an independent Approving Panel. The Approving Panel, composed of a High Court judge, a senior revenue officer, and an academic, may summon evidence, hold hearings, and issue binding directions within set timelines; such directions are final under the Act, subject only to constitutional judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment set as statutory default under proposed bill, expanding electronic non-contact tax assessments and procedural framework.
    Clause 273 makes faceless assessment the statutory default for specified assessments, empowers the Board to define applicability, establishes a National Faceless Assessment Centre with Assessment, Verification, Technical and Review Units, assigns distinct functions to each unit to minimize discretion, mandates electronic communications via the NFAC, and contemplates transfers to the jurisdictional officer where faceless procedure is unsuitable, with procedural details to be prescribed by the Board.

    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
      Central Excise

      what is the procedure of prosecution? FOR EVASION OF SERVICE TAX OR CENTRAL EXCISE :

      18 December, 2015

      Contents
      Circulars
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Circular No. 1009/16/2015-CX - Dated: 23-10-2015 - Central Excise - Guidelines for launching of Prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 regarding Service tax

      what is the procedure of prosecution?

       Procedure for sanction of prosecution

      Prosecution proposal should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner / Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General / Principal Director General of DGCEI ( in respect of cases booked by DGCEI) after the case has been carefully examined by the Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner or Additional Director General /Principal Additional Director General of  DGCEI who has adjudicated the case. In all cases of arrest, examination of the case to ascertain fitness for prosecution shall be necessarily carried out.

       Prosecution should not be launched in cases of technical nature, or where the additional claim of duty/tax is based totally on a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of law. Before launching any prosecution, it is necessary that the department should have evidence to prove that the person, company or individual had guilty knowledge of the offence, or had fraudulent intention to commit the offence, or in any manner possessed mens rea (guilty mind) which would indicate his guilt. It follows, therefore, that in the case of public limited companies, prosecution should not be launched indiscriminately against all the Directors of the company but it should be restricted to only against persons who were in charge of day-to-day operations of the factory and have taken active part in committing the duty/tax evasion or had connived at it.

      Prosecution should not be filed merely because a demand has been confirmed in the adjudication proceedings particularly in cases of technical nature or where interpretation of law is involved. One of the important considerations for deciding whether prosecution should be launched is the availability of adequate evidence. The standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution is higher as the case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas the adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. Therefore, even cases where demand is confirmed in adjudication proceedings, evidence collected should be weighed so as to likely meet the test of being beyond reasonable doubt for recommending prosecution. Decision should be taken on case-to-case basis considering various factors, such as, nature and gravity of offence, quantum of duty/tax evaded or Cenvat credit wrongly availed and the nature as well as quality of evidence collected.

        Decision on prosecution should be normally taken immediately on completion of the adjudication proceedings. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal [2011(266)ELT 294 (SC)] has interalia, observed the following :-

      (i) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings can be launched simultaneously; (ii) decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other and (iv) the findings against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution.” Therefore, prosecution may even be launched before the adjudication of the case, especially where offence involved is grave, qualitative evidences are available and it is also apprehended that party may delay completion of adjudication proceedings.

        Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or ADG (Adjudication) acting as adjudicating authority should indicate at the time of passing the adjudication order itself whether he considers the case to be fit for prosecution so that it can be further processed and  sent to Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI, as the case may be, for sanction of prosecution. Where at the time of adjudication proceedings no view has been taken on prosecution by the Adjudicating Authority then the adjudication wing shall re-submit the file within 15 days from the date of issue of adjudication order to the Adjudicating Authority to take view of prosecution. Where, prosecution is proposed before the adjudication of the case, Commissioner/Principal Commissioner or Principal Additional Director General/Additional Director General, DGCEI who supervised the investigation shall record the reason for the same and forward the proposal to the sanctioning authority. The adjudicating authority shall also be informed of the decision to forward the proposal so that there is no need for him to examine the case at the time of passing of adjudication order from the perspective of prosecution. Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI may on his own motion also, taking into consideration the seriousness of an offence, examine whether the case is fit for sanction of prosecution irrespective of whether the adjudicating authority has recommended prosecution.

       In respect of cases investigated by DGCEI, the adjudicating authority would intimate the decision taken regarding fitness of the case for prosecution to the Principal Additional Director General/ Additional Director General of the Zonal Unit or Headquarters concerned, where the case was investigated and show cause notice issued. The officers of unit of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence concerned would prepare an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution, within one month of the date of receipt of the decision of the adjudicating authority and would send the same to the Director General, CEI for taking decision on sanction of prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this Circular.

       In respect of cases not investigated by DGCEI, where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner who has adjudicated the case is satisfied that prosecution should be launched, an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution should be carefully prepared within one month of the date of issuance of the adjudication order . Investigation report should be signed by an Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, endorsed by the jurisdictional Principle Commissioner/Commissioner and sent to the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner for taking a decision on sanction for launching prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this circular. A criminal complaint in a court of law should be, filed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate only after the sanction of the Principal Chief / Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/Director General of DGCEI has been obtained.

       Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or Additional Director General (Adjudication) shall submit a report by 10th of every month to the Principal Chief /Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General/ Director General of CEI, who is the sanctioning authority for prosecution, conveying whether a view on launching prosecution has been taken in respect of adjudication orders issued during the preceding month.

       Once the sanction for prosecution has been obtained, criminal complaint in the court of law should be filed as early as possible by an officer of the jurisdictional Commissionerate authorized by the Commissioner.

      It has been reported that delays in the Court proceedings are often due to non-availability of the records required to be produced before the Magistrate or due to delay in drafting of the complaint, listing of the exhibits etc. It shall be the responsibility of the officer who has been authorized to file complaint, to take charge of all documents, statements and other exhibits that would be required to be produced before a Court. The list of exhibits etc. should be finalized in consultation with the Public Prosecutor at the time of drafting of the complaint. No time should be lost in ensuring that all exhibits are kept in safe custody. Where a complaint has not been filed even after a lapse of three months from the receipt of sanction for prosecution, the reason for delay shall be brought to the notice of the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or Director General of DGCEI by the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner in charge of the Commissionerate responsible for filing of the complaint

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax