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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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