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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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