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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Examination of Notice of Demand Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      13 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 289 Notice of demand.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are pivotal statutory provisions governing the issuance of a "notice of demand" by the tax authorities to taxpayers. The notice of demand is the formal mechanism through which the tax department communicates the liability determined under the Act and initiates the process for recovery of tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum due. These provisions, although similar in their foundational objective, reflect evolving policy perspectives, technological advancements, and administrative requirements. This commentary offers a detailed, clause-wise analysis of Clause 289, a comparative study with Section 156, and a discussion on their broader legal and practical implications.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind both Clause 289 and Section 156 is to establish a clear, legally binding process for notifying taxpayers of their dues under the Act. The notice of demand is not merely an administrative formality; it is a statutory precondition for the enforcement of tax recovery. The provisions ensure that taxpayers are informed of the quantum of liability, the basis for such determination, and the timeframe within which payment is to be made. The notice also serves to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer by providing transparency and an opportunity to comply before any coercive recovery measures are initiated.

      Historically, the notice of demand has been a cornerstone of tax administration, ensuring due process and fairness. Over time, the scope of these provisions has been expanded to cover not only regular assessment orders but also intimation orders under various automated or summary assessment mechanisms, as well as special provisions for start-up employees receiving specified securities or sweat equity shares.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Sub-section (1): General Rule for Issuance of Notice of Demand

      Clause 289(1) mandates that whenever any tax, interest, penalty, fine, or other sum becomes payable as a consequence of any order passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) must serve a notice of demand upon the assessee. The notice must be in the prescribed form and must specify the amount payable.

      • Scope: The provision is broad, covering all types of monetary liabilities arising under the Act, including tax, interest, penalties, fines, and any other sum. This ensures that all forms of liability are subject to the formal notice procedure.
      • Mandatory Nature: The use of the word "shall" makes it obligatory for the AO to issue the notice. This is consistent with the principle of natural justice, ensuring that the taxpayer is formally notified before any recovery proceedings commence.
      • Prescribed Form: The requirement that the notice be in a prescribed form ensures uniformity and reduces ambiguity, facilitating both administrative efficiency and taxpayer understanding.

      Sub-section (2): Deemed Notice of Demand for Certain Intimations

      Clause 289(2) provides that where any sum is determined to be payable by the assessee, deductor, or collector u/s 270 or 399, the intimation under those sections shall be deemed to be a notice of demand for the purposes of Clause 289.

      • Deeming Fiction: This sub-section introduces a legal fiction by treating certain intimations as equivalent to a formal notice of demand. This is particularly relevant for automated or summary assessments, where the system-generated intimation serves the same purpose as a traditional notice.
      • Administrative Efficiency: By deeming the intimation as a notice of demand, the provision streamlines the process, reduces duplication, and expedites the initiation of recovery proceedings.
      • Coverage: The reference to sections 270 and 399 (presumably corresponding to summary assessments, TDS/TCS processing, or similar mechanisms in the new Bill) ensures that the provision is future-proof and accommodates technological advancements in tax administration.

      Sub-section (3): Special Provisions for Start-up Employees - Deferment of Tax Payment on Specified Securities/Sweat Equity

      Clause 289(3) addresses a specific scenario involving employees of eligible start-ups who receive specified securities or sweat equity shares as part of their compensation.

      • Triggering Event: The provision applies where the income of the assessee for a tax year includes income of the nature specified in section 17(1)(d) (presumably covering perquisites in the form of specified securities or sweat equity shares).
      • Eligible Start-up: The employer must be an "eligible start-up" as defined in section 140 of the Bill.
      • Deferment Mechanism: The tax or interest on such income, as included in the notice of demand, is payable within fourteen days from the earliest of the following events:
        • After the expiry of sixty months from the end of the relevant tax year;
        • From the date of sale of such specified security or sweat equity share by the assessee;
        • From the date the assessee ceases to be an employee of the employer who allotted or transferred the securities.
      • Policy Rationale: This deferment acknowledges the illiquid nature of such compensation and the challenges faced by start-up employees in liquidating shares to pay taxes. It balances the government's interest in tax collection with the need to foster start-up growth and employee retention.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      1. Scope and Structure

      Both provisions are fundamentally similar in their core structure, requiring a notice of demand for any sum payable under the Act. Both have expanded to include not just regular assessments but also summary and automated assessment mechanisms.

      • Wording and Breadth: The language in both provisions is broad, covering all forms of liability. The 2025 Bill, however, modernizes references (e.g., "tax year" instead of "assessment year") and aligns with contemporary terminology.
      • Prescribed Form: Both require the notice to be in a prescribed form, ensuring standardization.

      2. Deemed Notice of Demand

      • Section 156: The proviso specifically refers to summary assessment and TDS/TCS processing sections (143(1), 200A, 206CB).
      • Clause 289: Refers to sections 270 and 399, which are presumably the corresponding provisions in the new Bill. The principle remains the same: system-generated intimations are deemed notices of demand.
      • Implication: The shift in section references reflects legislative modernization but does not materially alter the substantive effect of the provision.

      3. Special Provisions for Start-up Employees

      • Section 156(2): The deferment period is forty-eight months (four years) from the end of the relevant assessment year, with alternative triggers being sale of the security/share or cessation of employment. The eligible start-up is defined u/s 80-IAC.
      • Clause 289(3): The deferment period is extended to sixty months (five years) from the end of the relevant tax year. The eligible start-up is defined u/s 140 of the new Bill.
      • Key Differences:
        • Deferment Period: The 2025 Bill increases the deferment period by 12 months, providing greater relief to start-up employees. This reflects a policy shift towards further supporting start-up ecosystems and recognizing the longer gestation periods for liquidity events in start-ups.
        • Terminology: The 2025 Bill uses "tax year" and references its own start-up definition (section 140), while the 1961 Act uses "assessment year" and section 80-IAC. This is primarily a modernization and harmonization of terminology.
        • Nature of Income: Both provisions refer to income in the nature of specified securities or sweat equity shares, but the 2025 Bill references section 17(1)(d), while the 1961 Act references section 17(2)(vi). This reflects the new Bill's reorganization of perquisite provisions.

      4. Administrative and Compliance Implications

      • Uniformity and Clarity: Both provisions ensure that taxpayers are clearly informed of their liabilities and the timeframes for payment.
      • Facilitating Automation: The deeming provisions for system-generated intimations facilitate automated and technology-driven tax administration.
      • Support for Start-ups: The extension of the deferment period in the 2025 Bill is a significant pro-taxpayer reform, likely to be welcomed by start-up employees and the broader start-up ecosystem.

      5. Potential Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation

      • Definition of "Order": The term "order" is not specifically defined in either provision, but judicial interpretation generally includes all forms of assessment or determination of liability.
      • Service of Notice: The provisions are silent on the mode of service, which is typically governed by procedural rules. In practice, electronic service is increasingly becoming the norm.
      • Interaction with Recovery Provisions: The notice of demand is a prerequisite for invoking recovery mechanisms under the Act. Any defect in the notice may vitiate subsequent recovery proceedings.

      Practical Implications

      For Taxpayers

      • Awareness and Compliance: Taxpayers must carefully review notices of demand and understand the basis and quantum of liability. The extended deferment for start-up employees allows for better financial planning.
      • Remedies: If the taxpayer disputes the liability, the notice of demand serves as the starting point for appeals or rectification proceedings.

      For Tax Authorities

      • Administrative Efficiency: The provisions allow for uniform, system-driven issuance of notices, reducing manual errors and expediting the recovery process.
      • Legal Safeguard: Proper issuance of notice of demand is a legal safeguard, ensuring that recovery actions are not challenged on procedural grounds.

      For Start-up Ecosystem

      • Employee Retention and Incentivization: The extended deferment period in the 2025 Bill is likely to enhance the attractiveness of ESOPs and sweat equity as compensation tools.
      • Liquidity Management: Employees can defer tax payments until a liquidity event, reducing the financial burden and aligning tax outflows with actual cash inflows.

      Conclusion

      Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 serve as foundational pillars for the administration and enforcement of tax liabilities. While the core principles remain unchanged-ensuring due process, transparency, and administrative efficiency-the 2025 Bill introduces significant enhancements, particularly for start-up employees. The extension of the deferment period for tax payment on ESOPs and sweat equity reflects a nuanced understanding of the start-up ecosystem's needs and is likely to have a positive impact on talent retention and innovation. The modernization of terminology and alignment with technological advancements further strengthen the effectiveness of the notice of demand mechanism.

      Going forward, continued refinement of procedural aspects, including electronic service and integration with digital platforms, will further enhance the efficacy of these provisions. Judicial interpretation will remain crucial in resolving any ambiguities and ensuring that taxpayer rights are upheld.


      Full Text:

      Clause 289 Notice of demand.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax