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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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