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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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

      Powers to Call for Information under the Income Tax Law : Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      30 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 252 Power to call for information.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ("Clause 252") and Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Section 133") are pivotal statutory provisions that empower income tax authorities to call for information from various persons, entities, and intermediaries for the effective administration and enforcement of income tax law in India. These provisions play a crucial role in the investigation, assessment, and verification processes, underpinning the ability of tax authorities to ensure compliance, detect evasion, and protect the integrity of the tax system. The significance of such powers has grown in the context of increasing complexity in financial transactions, the proliferation of financial intermediaries, and the need for timely access to information in a globalized economy. Both Clause 252 and Section 133 reflect legislative intent to strike a balance between the investigatory needs of the tax administration and the rights of taxpayers and third parties. This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 252, explores its objectives and practical implications, and undertakes a comparative examination with Section 133, highlighting similarities, differences, and the evolution of statutory powers in this domain.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 252 is to confer broad and flexible powers upon specified income tax authorities to require information from a wide range of persons and entities. The legislative intent is to facilitate the collection of information necessary for the proper conduct of enquiries or proceedings under the Income Tax Act, including assessment, reassessment, and investigation into possible tax evasion or avoidance. Historically, the power to call for information has been a cornerstone of tax administration, enabling authorities to trace the flow of funds, verify the accuracy of returns, and uncover concealed income. The policy considerations underlying these powers include:

      • Ensuring effective tax compliance and enforcement.
      • Deterring tax evasion and avoidance by enhancing transparency.
      • Enabling cross-verification of information provided by taxpayers.
      • Facilitating international cooperation under tax treaties.

      Clause 252, like its predecessor, is designed to be comprehensive in scope, covering not only taxpayers but also intermediaries such as banks, brokers, and agents who may possess relevant information.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 252 is structured into three sub-sections, each delineating the scope, manner, and conditions for exercising the power to call for information.

      Sub-section (1): Persons from Whom Information Can Be Called and Nature of Information

      Sub-section (1) enumerates six categories of persons or entities from whom information may be required:

      1. General Power to Call for Information (Clause 252(1)(a)):
        The Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), or Commissioner (Appeals) may require any person, including a banking company or its officer, to furnish requisite information or statements of account and affairs, verified in a specified manner, relating to matters deemed useful or relevant to any enquiry or proceedings.
        Interpretation: This provision is drafted in broad terms, allowing authorities to seek information from any person, not limited to the taxpayer, if such information is considered relevant. The inclusion of banking companies is significant, as banks are often custodians of vital financial data.
      2. Firms (Clause 252(1)(b)):
        Firms may be required to provide returns containing names and addresses of partners and their respective shares.
        Interpretation:This facilitates the identification of persons with a beneficial interest in the firm's income and aids in the allocation of income for tax purposes.
      3. Hindu Undivided Families (Clause 252(1)(c)):
        HUFs may be required to furnish returns of the names and addresses of the manager and members.
        Interpretation:This provision recognizes the unique status of HUFs in Indian law and enables authorities to trace income to individual members.
      4. Trustees, Guardians, or Agents (Clause 252(1)(d)):
        Persons believed to be trustees, guardians, or agents may be required to provide returns of names and addresses of beneficiaries or principals.
        Interpretation: This is critical for uncovering income held on behalf of others and preventing the use of trusts or agency arrangements for tax avoidance.
      5. Assessees Regarding Specified Payments (Clause 252(1)(e)):
        Assessees may be required to furnish statements of names and addresses of persons to whom they have paid, in any tax year, rent, interest, commission, royalty, brokerage, or any annuity (other than those taxable under "Salaries") exceeding Rs. 10,000 or such higher amount as prescribed, with particulars of all such payments.
        Interpretation: This enables authorities to cross-check the claims of recipients and ensure proper reporting of income. The threshold of Rs. 10,000 (or higher if prescribed) reflects an intent to focus on significant transactions.
      6. Dealers, Brokers, Agents, and Stock/Commodity Exchanges (Clause 252(1)(f)):
        Such persons may be required to provide statements of names and addresses of all persons to whom or on whose behalf payments have been made or received in connection with the transfer of assets, along with particulars of all such payments and receipts.
        Interpretation: This provision is vital for tracing transactions in financial markets and preventing the use of exchanges for unreported or illicit transfers.

      Sub-section (2): Extension of Power to Other Authorities

      Clause 252(2) extends the power under sub-section (1)(a) to the "competent authority" or the "Assistant Director." This ensures that investigatory powers are not unduly concentrated and can be exercised at appropriate levels within the tax administration.

      Sub-section (3): Procedural Safeguards and Special Situations

      Sub-section (3) introduces important procedural safeguards and special conditions:

      • Approval Requirement (Clause 252(3)(a)):
        Where no proceedings are pending, authorities below the rank of Principal Director/Director or Principal Commissioner/Commissioner (excluding the Joint Director or Assistant Director) must obtain prior approval from the higher authority before exercising the power.
        Interpretation:This is a significant procedural check aimed at preventing misuse or overreach of the power in situations where there is no ongoing proceeding, thereby protecting the interests of persons from whom information is sought.
      • Exercise of Power for International Agreements (Clause 252(3)(b)):
        Income-tax authorities notified u/s 246(2)(a) may exercise these powers for the purposes of an agreement referred to in section 159, even if no proceedings are pending.
        Interpretation: This facilitates India's obligations under tax information exchange agreements and double taxation avoidance agreements, ensuring that information can be obtained even in the absence of a domestic proceeding.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      While Clause 252 is comprehensive, certain ambiguities and interpretational challenges may arise:

      • The phrase "in the opinion of such authority, will be useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceedings" is subjective and may be prone to challenge on grounds of arbitrariness or lack of specificity.
      • The scope of "any person" is extremely broad and could potentially include entities not directly related to the taxpayer, raising concerns about proportionality and privacy.
      • The threshold for reporting payments (Rs. 10,000 or higher as prescribed) may need periodic revision to reflect inflation and changes in economic conditions.
      • The mechanism for verification and the manner in which statements are to be furnished may require further elaboration in subordinate legislation or rules.

      Practical Implications

      For Taxpayers and Third Parties

      Clause 252 imposes compliance obligations on a broad spectrum of persons, including taxpayers, financial institutions, intermediaries, and fiduciaries. The key implications are:

      • Requirement to maintain detailed records and be prepared to furnish information at short notice.
      • Potential exposure to scrutiny not only for one's own affairs but also for transactions involving others (e.g., payments to third parties, fiduciary relationships).
      • Increased compliance costs, especially for small businesses and intermediaries.
      • Obligation to ensure accuracy and completeness of information provided, as furnishing false or incomplete information may attract penalties or prosecution.

      For Tax Authorities

      For tax authorities, Clause 252 is a powerful investigatory tool that:

      • Enables effective detection of unreported or concealed income.
      • Facilitates cross-verification of information from multiple sources.
      • Supports international cooperation in tax matters, including exchange of information.
      • Requires careful exercise of discretion and adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of power and protect the rights of persons from whom information is sought.

      Procedural and Compliance Aspects

      • Authorities must specify the manner and form in which information is to be furnished, and may require verification.
      • Where approval is required (in cases where no proceeding is pending), authorities must document the reasons and obtain prior sanction.
      • Persons receiving notices under Clause 252 must comply within the stipulated time and may seek extensions or clarifications if necessary.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 252 vs. Section 133

      A close examination reveals both continuity and evolution in the statutory framework.

      Structural Comparison

      Both Clause 252 and Section 133 are structured to enumerate the categories of persons from whom information can be called and the nature of such information. However, there are notable differences in drafting, sequencing, and the breadth of powers.

      Provisions-wise Comparison

      ProvisionSection 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Key Differences/Observations
      General Power to Call for InformationClause (6): Any person, including banking company, to furnish information/statements as specified by AO, DC(A), JC, JC(A), or C(A).Clause (1)(a): Any person, including banking company/officer, to furnish requisite information/statements as specified by authority.Clause 252 brings the general power to the forefront (first clause), signaling its primacy. The wording is more expansive ("requisite information") and explicitly includes verification "in such manner specified."
      FirmsClause (1): Return of names/addresses of partners and respective shares.Clause (1)(b): Same.No substantive change; language modernized.
      Hindu Undivided FamiliesClause (2): Names/addresses of manager and members.Clause (1)(c): Same.No substantive change; language modernized.
      Trustees, Guardians, AgentsClause (3): Names of persons for/of whom acting, and addresses.Clause (1)(d): Same.No substantive change; language modernized.
      Assessees: Payments Above ThresholdClause (4): Statement of names/addresses of payees of rent, interest, commission, royalty, brokerage, or annuity (excluding "Salaries") above Rs. 1,000 or prescribed higher amount.Clause (1)(e): Statement for payments above Rs. 10,000 or prescribed higher amount.Threshold increased from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000, reflecting inflation and administrative efficiency by focusing on substantial transactions.
      Dealers, Brokers, ExchangesClause (5): Names/addresses of persons to whom/for whom payments made/received in connection with transfer of assets, with particulars.Clause (1)(f): Same.No substantive change; language modernized.
      Authority to Exercise PowerAO, DC(A), JC, JC(A), C(A); also, higher authorities (Principal DG, DG, Principal CC, CC, Principal D, D, Principal C, C, Joint D, Deputy D, Assistant D).AO, JC, JC(A), C(A); also, competent authority or Assistant Director (for 1(a)).List of authorities slightly restructured; "competent authority" and "Assistant Director" added for certain powers.
      Approval Requirement (No Proceedings Pending)Below Principal D or D or Principal C or C (other than Joint D, Deputy D, Assistant D) must obtain prior approval in cases where no proceedings are pending.Similar; below Principal D or D or Principal C or C (other than Joint D or Assistant D) must obtain prior approval.Deputy Director is omitted in Clause 252, possibly reflecting administrative restructuring.
      International AgreementsIncome-tax authority notified u/s 131(2) can exercise these powers for agreements u/s 90/90A, even if no proceedings pending.Income-tax authority notified u/s 246(2)(a) can exercise these powers for agreements u/s 159, even if no proceedings pending.References updated to correspond to the new Bill's section numbering and international cooperation framework.

      Other Observations

      • Modernization and Reorganization: Clause 252 modernizes language, reorganizes the sequence, and updates cross-references to conform with the new Bill's structure.
      • Threshold for Reporting: The increase in the monetary threshold for reporting payments (from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000) is a significant change, reducing compliance burden for small transactions and focusing administrative resources on larger, potentially riskier payments.
      • Verification Requirements: Clause 252 expressly mentions that statements may be required to be "verified in such manner specified," providing explicit authority for the form and manner of verification.
      • Procedural Safeguards: Both provisions retain the requirement for prior approval in cases where no proceedings are pending, but Clause 252 omits reference to Deputy Director, possibly reflecting a rationalization of authority levels.
      • Alignment with International Standards: The express provision for use of these powers in connection with international agreements reflects India's increasing commitment to tax transparency and cooperation.

      Conclusion

      Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 continues the tradition of robust investigatory powers for income-tax authorities, updating and refining the framework established by Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision maintains the breadth of powers while introducing modernization in language, increasing reporting thresholds, and streamlining the list of authorized officers. The core objectives-ensuring effective tax compliance, facilitating investigation, and supporting international cooperation-remain intact. The procedural safeguards embedded in both provisions reflect a conscious effort to balance investigative needs with the rights and interests of taxpayers and third parties. Looking forward, further clarity may be required through rules or subordinate legislation regarding the manner of furnishing information, verification processes, and the scope of "requisite information." Periodic review of monetary thresholds and the list of authorities empowered to exercise these powers would help ensure continued relevance and proportionality.


      Full Text:

      Clause 252 Power to call for information.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax