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

      Evolution of Self-Assessment: Continuity and Change in Indian Tax Law : Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      7 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 266 Self-assessment.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a significant evolution in the statutory regime governing self-assessment and the payment of tax at the time of filing the return of income. This clause is designed to supplant the existing Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has, for decades, provided the framework for self-assessment tax payments. The transition from Section 140A to Clause 266 is not merely a matter of renumbering or cosmetic change; it reflects a broader legislative intent to streamline, clarify, and, in certain respects, expand the scope of self-assessment obligations. Both provisions share a common objective: to ensure that an assessee, before furnishing their return of income, discharges their liability towards tax, interest, and fees, taking into account various credits and reliefs available under the law. However, Clause 266 introduces nuanced changes in language, coverage, and procedural requirements, which merit detailed analysis. This commentary systematically examines each aspect of Clause 266, contrasts it with the corresponding elements of Section 140A, and evaluates the implications for taxpayers, administrators, and the overall tax compliance ecosystem.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind both Section 140A and Clause 266 is to reinforce the principle of voluntary compliance-a cornerstone of the self-assessment system. By requiring taxpayers to compute and pay their tax liability, along with applicable interest and fees, at the time of filing their return, the law seeks to:

      • Reduce administrative burden on tax authorities by shifting the initial responsibility for tax computation and payment to the assessee.
      • Ensure timely flow of tax revenues to the exchequer.
      • Discourage delay in payment of taxes and filing of returns through the imposition of interest and fees.
      • Facilitate seamless processing of returns and reduce post-assessment disputes.

      Clause 266, in the context of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is also aimed at modernizing and harmonizing the self-assessment process in light of changes in the broader tax architecture, including the integration of digital processes and the rationalization of various reliefs and credits.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Sub-section (1): Liability to Pay Self-Assessment Tax, Interest, and Fee

      Clause 266(1) provides that, after accounting for the amounts referred to in sub-section (2), if any tax is payable on the basis of a return required u/ss 263, 268, 280, or 294, the assessee must pay such tax, along with any interest and fee for delay, before furnishing the return. The return must be accompanied by proof of such payment.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(1) similarly requires payment of self-assessment tax, interest, and fee before return filing, but references a different set of sections (e.g., sections 139, 142, 148, 153A, 158BC) relating to the requirement to file a return. The 2025 Bill appears to update and reorganize these references, possibly reflecting a new structure for return filing obligations under the proposed law.

      Key Features:

      • Explicit inclusion of interest and fee, reinforcing the obligation to pay all ancillary dues.
      • Mandatory accompaniment of return with proof of payment, ensuring documentary compliance.

      Sub-section (2): Credits and Reliefs to be Considered

      Clause 266(2) enumerates the amounts to be reduced from the tax payable, including:

      • Tax already paid under any provision.
      • Tax deducted or collected at source.
      • Relief u/s 157 (analogous to section 89 in the 1961 Act: relief for salary arrears, etc.).
      • Relief/deduction u/ss 159(1) or 160 (tax paid in a foreign country).
      • Relief u/s 159(2) (tax paid in a specified territory outside India).
      • Tax credit set off u/s 206(13).
      • Tax or interest payable u/s 391(2).

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(1) lists similar deductions but refers to:

      • Relief u/s 89.
      • Relief/deduction u/ss 90, 91 (foreign tax credit), and 90A (specified territory).
      • Tax credit u/ss 115JAA, 115JD (MAT/AMT credits).
      • Tax or interest u/s 191(2).

      The 2025 Bill appears to consolidate or renumber these provisions (e.g., section 157 for relief, section 206(13) for tax credits), but the overall structure is preserved. The inclusion of "any tax or interest payable according to section 391(2)" seems to broaden the scope, possibly to capture other tax liabilities arising under the Bill.

      Sub-section (3): Manner of Adjustment of Short Payment

      If the amount paid under sub-section (1) falls short of the total tax, interest, and fee, Clause 266(3) mandates that the payment be first adjusted towards the fee, then interest, and the balance towards tax.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A contains a similar explanation, prescribing the order of adjustment: fee -> interest -> tax. This codification ensures that statutory dues (such as late filing fees) are prioritized, followed by interest (a compensatory charge), and finally the principal tax.

      Sub-sections (4) and (5): Computation of Interest

      Clause 266(4) stipulates that interest u/s 423 is to be computed on the tax declared in the return, reduced by advance tax, TDS/TCS, reliefs, and credits listed in sub-section (2). Clause 266(5) provides that interest u/s 424 is to be computed on the "assessed tax" or the shortfall of advance tax.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(1A) and (1B) set out similar rules for the computation of interest u/ss 234A (for delay in filing return) and 234B (for shortfall in advance tax). The structure and logic are parallel, with updated section references in the 2025 Bill.

      Sub-section (6): Definition of Assessed Tax

      Clause 266(6) defines "assessed tax" as the tax on the returned income, reduced by TDS/TCS, reliefs, and credits, mirroring the approach in Section 140A(1B) Explanation.

      Sub-section (7): Appropriation of Self-Assessment Payment

      Payments made under Clause 266(1) are deemed to have been paid towards any subsequent regular assessment u/ss 270, 271, or 294.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(2) contains a similar provision, referencing the relevant assessment sections under the 1961 Act.

      Sub-section (8): Consequence of Default

      Failure to pay the required tax, interest, or fee results in the assessee being deemed an "assessee in default," triggering recovery and penal provisions under the Act.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(3) is functionally identical, ensuring the enforceability of the self-assessment payment obligation.

      Sub-section (9): Non-Prejudice to Other Consequences

      Clause 266(9) clarifies that the consequences under sub-section (8) are without prejudice to any other liabilities under the Act.

      Comparative Note: Section 140A(3) includes similar language, reinforcing that multiple consequences (e.g., penalty, prosecution) may ensue.

      Practical Implications

      The self-assessment provisions, both under the 1961 Act and the 2025 Bill, have far-reaching practical implications:

      • For Taxpayers:
        • Mandate precise computation of tax liability, considering all eligible credits and reliefs.
        • Impose a strict requirement to pay dues before return filing, with documentary proof.
        • Expose the taxpayer to penal consequences for shortfall or default, including being deemed an assessee in default.
        • Require awareness of the latest provisions and section references, especially as the 2025 Bill reorganizes the law.
      • For Businesses:
        • Necessitate robust internal processes for tax computation and compliance.
        • Increase the importance of accurate data on TDS/TCS and foreign tax credits.
        • Potentially impact cash flows, as all dues must be settled before return filing.
      • For Tax Administrators:
        • Facilitate easier verification of returns, as payment proof is mandatory.
        • Enable prompt initiation of recovery proceedings in case of default.
        • Reduce disputes at the assessment stage, as the self-assessment process is clearly codified.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 266 vs. Section 140A

      Structural Differences

      • The 2025 Bill reorganizes the section references, aligning them with the new statutory architecture (e.g., sections 263, 268, etc., in place of sections 139, 142, etc.).
      • Some provisions are consolidated or renumbered (e.g., section 157 for relief, section 206(13) for tax credits).
      • Clause 266 is more explicit in certain respects, such as the inclusion of interest and fee throughout, and the requirement for proof of payment.

      Substantive Parity

      • The core obligation-to pay self-assessment tax, interest, and fee before filing the return-remains unchanged.
      • The order of adjustment (fee -> interest -> tax), the computation of interest, and the definition of "assessed tax" are preserved in substance.
      • The consequence of default (deemed assessee in default) and the non-prejudice clause are retained.

      Notable Changes and Additions

      • Clause 266(2) includes "any tax or interest payable according to section 391(2)," potentially broadening the scope of amounts to be considered.
      • The Bill may reflect updated policy priorities, such as digital compliance and harmonization with international tax credit mechanisms.
      • The section references for reliefs and credits have been updated, requiring taxpayers and practitioners to familiarize themselves with the new numbering and cross-references.

      Potential Ambiguities and Issues

      • The transition to new section numbers may cause temporary confusion among taxpayers and professionals.
      • The precise scope of certain referenced sections (e.g., section 391(2)) will depend on the final text and interpretation of the 2025 Bill.
      • The requirement for proof of payment, while administratively beneficial, may create compliance challenges in cases where payments are made close to the filing deadline.

      Policy and Administrative Considerations

      • The self-assessment regime is central to voluntary compliance; the clarity and user-friendliness of Clause 266 will determine its effectiveness.
      • The explicit prioritization of fee and interest over tax in the adjustment of short payments aligns with the revenue's interest in enforcing timely compliance.
      • The updated cross-references and consolidation of reliefs/credits may facilitate easier administration, provided adequate guidance is issued during the transition.

      Comparative table

      AspectSection 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Returns CoveredSections 139, 142, 148, 153A, 158BC, etc.Sections 263, 268, 280, 294
      Deductions AllowedTax paid, TDS/TCS, relief under 89, 90, 90A, 91, tax credits under 115JAA/ 115JDTax paid, TDS/TCS, relief under 157, 159(1)/(2), 160, tax credits under 206(13), etc.
      Interest ComputationSections 234A (late filing), 234B (advance tax shortfall), 115WK (fringe benefits)Sections 423 (late filing), 424 (advance tax shortfall)
      Definition of "Assessed Tax"Tax on total income less TDS/TCS, reliefs, tax creditsSimilar approach, with references to new sections
      Adjustment of ShortfallFee, then interest, then tax (Explanation to sub-section (1))Same order (sub-section (3))
      Deemed DefaultAssessee in default for unpaid tax/interest/fee (sub-section (3))Same consequence (sub-section (8))

      Conclusion

      Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a considered and largely faithful continuation of the self-assessment tax regime established Section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The changes introduced are primarily structural and organizational, reflecting the broader overhaul of the Income Tax law. The core principles-voluntary computation and payment of tax, inclusion of all applicable credits and reliefs, mandatory payment of interest and fee, strict consequences for default, and clear mechanisms for adjustment and appropriation-are preserved and, in some respects, clarified. For taxpayers and practitioners, the key challenge will be adapting to the new section references and ensuring continued compliance with the self-assessment requirements. For administrators, Clause 266 promises greater clarity and enforceability. As with any major legislative transition, the success of Clause 266 will depend on effective communication, transitional guidance, and the resolution of any interpretative ambiguities that arise.


      Full Text:

      Clause 266 Self-assessment.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax