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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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