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

      Relief from Interest and Penalty in Search Assessments : Clause 297 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 158BF of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 297 Certain interests and penalties not to be levied or imposed.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Introduction

      Clause 297 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 158BF of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the issue of interest and penalty in the context of assessments following a search and seizure operation. These provisions form a crucial part of the special procedure for assessment of search cases, reflecting legislative intent to balance the interests of revenue collection with principles of fairness and equity for the assessee. The legal landscape surrounding search assessments has evolved in response to legislative reforms, judicial pronouncements, and policy considerations. This commentary undertakes a detailed legal analysis of Clause 297, explores its objectives, practical implications, and compares it with the corresponding provision in the existing legal regime, Section 158BF, to highlight continuities, departures, and potential legal consequences.

      2. Objective and Purpose

      Legislative Intent

      The primary objective behind Clause 297 and its predecessor, Section 158BF, is to provide relief to assessees from the imposition of certain interests and penalties in respect of undisclosed income assessed during the block period following a search. The block assessment procedure, introduced as a special mechanism, is intended to expedite the assessment of undisclosed income discovered during search operations, distinct from regular assessments. The rationale for exempting the assessee from certain interests and penalties is rooted in the recognition that, in search cases, the determination of undisclosed income is based on evidence unearthed by the tax authorities, often without prior knowledge or opportunity for the assessee to disclose such income voluntarily. Imposing additional financial burdens by way of interest or penalty in such circumstances may be viewed as unduly punitive and contrary to the objectives of the search assessment regime.

      Policy Considerations and Historical Background

      Historically, the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced Chapter XIV-B (now largely superseded) to provide a comprehensive framework for the assessment of undisclosed income unearthed during search and seizure operations. Section 158BF was incorporated to ensure that, while the revenue could tax undisclosed income, the assessee would not be subjected to the rigours of interest u/ss 234A, 234B, or 234C or penalty u/s 270A (or previously, section 271(1)(c), 271A, or 271B) for such income. This policy was designed to encourage cooperation during search proceedings and to recognize the unique circumstances under which such assessments are made.

      3. Detailed Analysis of Clause 297 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      3.1 Text of Clause 297

      Interest u/s 423, 424 or 425 or penalty u/s 439 shall not be levied or imposed upon the assessee for the undisclosed income assessed or reassessed for the block period.

      3.2 Breakdown of Key Provisions

      • Exemption from Interest: Clause 297 specifies that no interest u/ss 423, 424, or 425 is to be levied on the assessee in respect of undisclosed income assessed or reassessed for the block period. These sections, while renumbered in the 2025 Bill, are analogous to the existing sections 234A (interest for default in furnishing return), 234B (interest for default in payment of advance tax), and 234C (interest for deferment of advance tax) under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
      • Exemption from Penalty: Similarly, no penalty u/s 439 is to be imposed for the undisclosed income assessed or reassessed for the block period. Section 439 in the 2025 Bill is the counterpart to section 270A (penalty for underreporting and misreporting of income) in the current Act.
      • Scope Limited to Block Period: The relief is specifically restricted to undisclosed income assessed or reassessed for the block period, aligning with the special procedure for search assessments.

      3.3 Interpretation and Legal Principles

      The language of Clause 297 is categorical in prohibiting the levy of interest and penalty for undisclosed income assessed pursuant to a search. The legislative approach recognizes that, in the context of search assessments, the usual triggers for interest (such as delay in filing returns or shortfall in advance tax) and penalty (for underreporting) may not apply in the same manner as in regular assessments. The provision ensures that assessees are not doubly penalized for income that comes to light solely due to search operations, rather than through voluntary disclosure or regular assessment procedures.

      3.4 Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      While the provision is broadly similar to its predecessor, certain interpretative questions may arise:

      • Definition of "Undisclosed Income": The precise scope of "undisclosed income" for the block period must be determined with reference to the definitions elsewhere in the Bill, to avoid disputes regarding inclusion or exclusion of certain items.
      • Overlap with Other Penalty Provisions: Clause 297 only exempts penalty u/s 439. If other penalty provisions exist for procedural defaults or other infractions, their applicability in the context of search assessments may require clarification.
      • Scope of "Assessed or Reassessed": The phrase "assessed or reassessed" ensures that relief is available both in the initial block assessment and in subsequent reassessment proceedings, but may invite litigation if the nature of reassessment is disputed.

      4. Practical Implications

      4.1 Impact on Assessees

      The exemption from interest and penalty offers significant relief to assessees subject to search assessments. It reduces the financial burden by limiting the consequences to tax liability alone, without additional punitive charges. This is particularly relevant for individuals and businesses with large quantum of undisclosed income unearthed during searches, as the cumulative effect of interest and penalty could otherwise be substantial.

      4.2 Impact on Revenue Authorities

      For the tax administration, the provision streamlines the assessment process by eliminating the need to compute and justify interest and penalty for the block period. This enables a more focused approach to the core issue-determination of undisclosed income-while minimizing litigation over ancillary charges.

      4.3 Compliance and Procedural Aspects

      Practitioners and assessees must ensure that the relief is claimed strictly in relation to the block period and for income classified as "undisclosed" pursuant to search. Regular income or income for other periods remains subject to the usual interest and penalty provisions. Proper documentation and legal advice are necessary to avoid inadvertent exposure to liability.

      5. Comparative Analysis with Section 158BF of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      5.1 Textual Comparison

      Section 158BF: No interest u/s 234A, 234B or 234C or penalty u/s 270A shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income assessed or reassessed for the block period.

      A side-by-side comparison reveals that Clause 297 of the 2025 Bill is substantively similar to Section 158BF, albeit with updated references to the corresponding provisions in the new legislative framework (sections 423, 424, 425, and 439 in place of 234A, 234B, 234C, and 270A respectively).

      5.2 Evolution of the Provision

      Section 158BF has itself undergone amendments over time. The original provision referred to penalty u/s 271(1)(c), 271A, or 271B, but was later updated to refer to section 270A, reflecting changes in the penalty regime. Clause 297 continues this approach, aligning with the current structure of the penalty and interest sections in the new Bill.

      5.3 Scope and Coverage

      • Interest: Both provisions exempt the assessee from interest for delay in filing return, default in payment of advance tax, and deferment of advance tax for undisclosed income assessed in a search case.
      • Penalty: Both provisions exempt penalty for underreporting or misreporting (earlier for concealment u/s 271(1)(c)), but the current regime refers to section 270A (now section 439 in the Bill).
      • Temporal Scope: Both are restricted to the "block period," a concept specific to search assessments.

      5.4 Key Differences and Similarities  

      AspectSection 158BF of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 297 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Interest Provisions234A, 234B, 234C423, 424, 425
      Penalty Provision270A (earlier 271(1)(c), 271A, 271B)439
      ApplicabilityUndisclosed income assessed or reassessed for block periodSame
      Legislative ContextChapter XIV-B (now largely superseded)Special procedure for assessment of search cases (new Bill)

      5.5 Judicial Interpretation and Doctrinal Considerations

      Courts have consistently upheld the legislative intent behind Section 158BF, emphasizing that the exemption from interest and penalty is a deliberate policy choice to avoid penalizing assessees twice for the same default-once through the taxation of undisclosed income and again through interest and penalty. The Supreme Court and High Courts have clarified that the exemption applies strictly to income assessed under the block assessment procedure, and not to income assessed under regular provisions. This jurisprudence will likely inform the interpretation of Clause 297 as well.

      5.6 Potential Conflicts and Areas for Clarification

      While the provisions are largely harmonious, the transition from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill may give rise to transitional issues, particularly in cases where search proceedings straddle the old and new regimes. Legislative guidance or clarificatory circulars may be required to address such scenarios and ensure consistent application.

      6. Practical Implications for Stakeholders

      6.1 For Assessees

      • Provides certainty and reduces exposure to additional financial liabilities in search cases.
      • Encourages cooperation and disclosure during search proceedings.
      • Requires careful classification of income to ensure that only "undisclosed income" for the block period is claimed as exempt from interest and penalty.

      6.2 For Tax Practitioners

      • Necessitates vigilance in advising clients on the scope of relief and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
      • Potential for litigation in borderline cases, particularly regarding the definition of "undisclosed income" and the applicability of other penalty provisions.

      6.3 For Revenue Authorities

      • Facilitates efficient assessments by focusing on the core issue of undisclosed income.
      • Reduces administrative burden of calculating and defending interest and penalty in search cases.
      • May require updated training and guidance to ensure correct application under the new legislative framework.

      7. Comparative Perspective: Other Jurisdictions

      Internationally, tax authorities in several jurisdictions adopt a similar approach, distinguishing between voluntary disclosures and income discovered through enforcement action. While penalties and interest are generally imposed for non-compliance, special regimes for search or investigation cases often provide tailored relief, recognizing the unique circumstances of such assessments. The Indian approach, as reflected in Clause 297 and Section 158BF, is consistent with best practices in balancing revenue interests with procedural fairness.

      8. Conclusion

      Clause 297 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation of the legislative approach embodied in Section 158BF of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing targeted relief from interest and penalty in the context of search assessments. The provision is grounded in sound policy considerations, recognizing the distinct nature of search proceedings and the need to avoid over-penalization. While the core elements remain unchanged, the updated references and alignment with the new legislative structure ensure the provision remains relevant and effective. Stakeholders must remain vigilant to ensure proper application, and transitional guidance may be necessary to address issues arising from the shift to the new regime. The provision serves as a key safeguard in the special assessment procedure, promoting procedural fairness while securing the interests of the revenue.


      Full Text:

      Clause 297 Certain interests and penalties not to be levied or imposed.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax