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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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