Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income 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 Laws GST
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 Laws Income 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 Laws GST
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 Laws GST
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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Provision Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Key Differences/Observations
General Power to Call for Information Clause (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."
Firms Clause (1): Return of names/addresses of partners and respective shares. Clause (1)(b): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Hindu Undivided Families Clause (2): Names/addresses of manager and members. Clause (1)(c): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Trustees, Guardians, Agents Clause (3): Names of persons for/of whom acting, and addresses. Clause (1)(d): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Assessees: Payments Above Threshold Clause (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, Exchanges Clause (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 Power AO, 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 Agreements Income-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

Acts Income Tax