Certification for Supreme Court appeal restricts access to cases presenting substantial legal questions, streamlining appellate tax litigation.
Clause 367 confines appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court judgments to cases which the High Court certifies as fit for appeal and reframes the source of such appeals to judgments delivered on appeals under section 363, streamlining the previous reference/appeal bifurcation and maintaining a high certification threshold to limit review to substantial questions of law or issues of public importance.

Multi-judge bench requirement ensures collective resolution of contested legal points in tax appeals under the new bill.
Clause 366 mandates a multi-judge bench requirement for specified tax appeals, directing that matters be heard by not less than two judges and decided according to the majority opinion; if no majority arises, judges must state the precise point of law in dispute, the point is reheard by additional judges, and the final decision on that point is determined by the majority of all judges who have heard the case.

Substantial question of law: High Court appeals limited to legal issues, streamlining tax appellate review and implementation.
Clause 365 permits appeals to the High Court from Appellate Tribunal orders only when the High Court is satisfied a substantial question of law arises; it prescribes eligible appellants, a time-limited memorandum-based filing, condonation for sufficient cause, High Court formulation and limitation of the question(s) heard (with power to add questions for recorded reasons), reasoned judgments with costs, authority to decide issues not determined or wrongly decided by the Tribunal, application of Civil Procedure rules, and an express duty on the Assessing Officer to give effect to the High Court's judgment.

Procedural autonomy preserved in appellate tribunal; statutory cross references modernized while e governance provisions omitted, affecting bench practice.
Clause 364 maintains the President's authority to constitute Benches, preserves the dual Judicial and Accountant member default and Special Benches for significant issues, permits single member disposal for lower value matters subject to presidential or authorised member designation, grants the Tribunal procedural autonomy and quasi judicial powers, modernises cross references to new penal and procedural statutes, and omits previous express provisions enabling executive notification of e governance schemes, raising transitional and implementation questions.

Tribunal Orders: stay limits and rectification rules balance taxpayer rights and revenue protection in the appellate process.
Clause 363 establishes the Tribunal's authority to decide appeals after hearing parties, permits rectification of mistakes apparent from record within a prescribed period subject to a nominal fee and hearing where liability is increased, and prescribes an aspirational timeline for disposal. It provides a conditional stay-of-recovery regime requiring deposit or security with limited extension criteria and automatic vacation if disposal does not occur within the aggregate period; the Tribunal may award costs, must communicate orders to the assessee and Commissioner, and its orders are final save for specified statutory exceptions.

Appeals to Appellate Tribunal: modernized scope, uniform timelines, cross-objection rights, fee rationalisation preserved.
Clause 362 modernizes appeals to the Appellate Tribunal by listing appealable orders across the reorganized administrative hierarchy, prescribing a uniform filing period, permitting respondents to file cross-objections treated as independent appeals, allowing the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause, and setting form, verification and a progressive fee regime while exempting revenue appeals and cross-objections from fees.

Tribunal independence: bifurcated appointment and service rules safeguard ITAT members' conditions and transitional rights.
Clause 361(2) and Section 252A use non obstante language to govern ITAT members' qualifications, appointments, term, salaries, allowances, resignation and removal by bifurcating applicable regimes: post Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 appointees are governed by Chapter II of that Act (detailing qualifications, a Search cum Selection Committee, tenure and service conditions), while pre Finance Act, 2017 appointees remain governed by the Income tax Act, 1961 and its rules as if the contested Finance Act provision had not come into force.

Appellate tribunal constitution updated to centralize appointments and delegate presidential powers, affecting tribunal independence and transitional safeguards.
Clause 361 maintains a multi member Appellate Tribunal of Judicial and Accountant Members while empowering the Central Government to determine member strength; mandates that the President be a High Court judge with substantial judicial experience or a Vice President; permits appointment of one or more Vice Presidents; and authorizes delegation of presidential powers to Vice Presidents by written order. The clause defers detailed eligibility and service conditions to the general tribunal framework and includes a transitional rule preserving pre existing service conditions for incumbents.

Appellate Powers: authority to modify assessments and penalties subject to a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The appellate authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul assessments and may confirm, cancel, or vary penalty orders; the Commissioner (Appeals) alone may set aside assessments and remit for fresh assessment in specified cases. Any enhancement of assessment or penalty or reduction of refund requires a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to show cause. The appellate authority may consider and decide any matter arising from the proceedings, and must take into account materials produced before the Settlement Commission where proceedings abate.

Appeal procedure: preservation of right to be heard, reasoned orders, and discretionary powers for inquiry and additional grounds.
Clause 359 sets the appellate procedure before first instance tax authorities, affirming the right to be heard, notice of hearing, powers to adjourn and direct further inquiry, discretion to admit additional grounds of appeal if omission was not wilful or unreasonable, a requirement for written reasoned orders specifying points for determination and decisions, a directory timeline aiming at one year disposal where possible, and communication of orders to the assessee and appropriate senior tax officials.

Appeal procedure: prescribed form, 30 day limitation, pre deposit requirement with written reason exemptions permitted.
Clause 358 preserves the Section 249 appellate framework by requiring appeals in prescribed form and verification, imposing a graded appeal fee related to assessed income, and setting a thirty day limitation from service of the order or demand. It excludes time spent on specified relief applications from limitation, permits condonation of delay for sufficient cause, and conditions admission on payment of tax on returned income or advance tax where no return is filed, while allowing written reason exemptions from the advance payment requirement.

Appellate jurisdiction redefined: Clause 357 sets scope of appealable tax orders and preserves DRP-related exclusions.
Clause 357 defines the orders appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals), listing assessment, reassessment, recomputation, intimation adjustments, orders treating a person as agent of a non-resident, and penalty orders, while preserving exclusions for orders following Dispute Resolution Panel directions and allowing the Board to specify additional appealable cases; it updates and consolidates categories previously under Section 246A and raises interpretive issues concerning exclusions, newly numbered sections, penalty consolidation, and transitional treatment of pending appeals.

Appellate scope reform consolidates appealable orders, enables faceless appeals and transfers while preserving rehearing safeguards.
Clause 356 prescribes an exhaustive list of appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), defines "status" by cross reference, prohibits appeals where orders are passed by or with approval of authorities above Deputy Commissioner, and empowers the Board to transfer appeals between JCIT(A) and Commissioner (Appeals) with a mandated opportunity of rehearing. It formally enables a government notified faceless disposal scheme-permitting elimination of physical interface and modification of procedural provisions-and authorizes the Board to exclude specified cases or classes from the section's operation.

Right of appeal to High Court preserves judicial review over advance rulings with limited condonation and streamlined procedure.
Clause 389 grants a statutory right of appeal to the High Court against rulings or orders of the Board for Advance Rulings and certain Assessing Officer actions, mandates filing in the prescribed form and manner within a limited period, allows judicial condonation for a short additional interval, omits prior executive scheme-making and modification powers, and relies on Rule 44FA to integrate appeal procedure with jurisdictional High Court practice.

Procedural autonomy for advance rulings enables the Board to set its own procedures, heightening calls for transparency and safeguards.
Clause 388 vests the Board for Advance Rulings with broad power to regulate its own procedure, subject to the relevant Chapter, enabling the Board to prescribe filing rules, hearing modes, timelines, evidence protocols, order formats and confidentiality mechanisms, while the institutional shift from a quasi judicial Authority to an administrative Board raises concerns about explicit natural justice safeguards, transparency, consistency and the scope of judicial review.

Advance Rulings powers modernisation clarifies BAR's quasi judicial authority and civil court powers under reformed procedural codes.
Clause 387 modernises the powers and status of the Board for Advance Rulings by vesting it with civil court powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, receive affidavit evidence and exercise other adjudicatory functions, and by deeming its proceedings to be judicial proceedings that attract penal consequences for perjury and related offences, while limiting the civil court status to specified purposes and aligning cross references with reformed procedural and penal codes.

Void ab initio of advance rulings: fraud or misrepresentation may nullify rulings and restore ordinary tax provisions.
Clause 386 empowers the Board for Advance Rulings to declare an advance ruling void ab initio if found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, on representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise; the Act is to apply as if no ruling had been made (excluding the period the ruling was in force), and a copy of the order must be sent to the applicant and the tax authority.

Jurisdictional bar on parallel proceedings preserves advance rulings' exclusivity for resident applicants and prevents conflicting adjudication.
Clause 385 imposes a jurisdictional bar barring income tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal from deciding any issue for which a resident has filed an advance ruling application; the prohibition attaches on filing and pertains only to the specific issue raised, thereby preserving the exclusivity and predictability of the advance ruling mechanism while raising interpretive questions about the definition of "issue" and the treatment of pending proceedings.

Advance ruling procedure secures binding tax guidance with hearing rights, grounds for rejection, and mandatory communication.
Clause 384 requires the Board for Advance Rulings to forward applications to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, call for records, and after examination either allow or reject applications. Rejection must follow an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, and orders must be communicated to the applicant and tax authorities. Mandatory exclusions include pending proceedings, fair market value determinations, and transactions prima facie designed for tax avoidance; if allowed, the Board must examine further material, hear the applicant or authorised representative, and pronounce a written ruling within the prescribed time frame.

Advance ruling procedure: streamlined application process with prescribed form, quadruplicate filing, fee and a thirty day withdrawal window.
Clause 383 establishes a streamlined procedure for advance rulings: applications must state the specific question and be filed in the prescribed form and manner in quadruplicate, accompanied by a prescribed fee, and may be withdrawn within thirty days. The clause retains core procedural features of the prior regime but omits transitional and legacy transfer or opt-out provisions, leaving form, fee, and certain consequences of withdrawal to subordinate rules.