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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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