Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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