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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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