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

      Changing Face of Criminal Procedure in Income Tax Offence Prosecution : Clause 498 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 280D of Income-tax Act, 1961

      15 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 498 Application of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to proceedings before Special Court.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory provisions that govern the procedural framework for the prosecution of offences under the respective Acts before Special Courts. Both provisions address the application of general criminal procedural laws to proceedings under the Income Tax regime, the appointment and qualification of prosecutors, and the status of such prosecutors before Special Courts. While Section 280D, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, invoked the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes to substitute the CrPC with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), reflecting a significant legislative shift. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 498, its objectives, structure, practical implications, and a clause-by-clause comparison with Section 280D, highlighting the legal and policy implications of this transition.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 498 and Section 280D is to establish a clear procedural framework for the prosecution of income tax offences before Special Courts. These provisions ensure that proceedings are conducted in accordance with established criminal procedure, that prosecutors are appointed with requisite qualifications, and that the administration of justice is streamlined and consistent with broader criminal law principles.

      The legislative intent behind these provisions can be summarized as follows:

      • To provide procedural uniformity and legal certainty in the prosecution of tax offences.
      • To ensure that the prosecution is conducted by qualified legal professionals with adequate experience and knowledge of law.
      • To enable the Central Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors for complex or significant cases requiring specialized attention.
      • To align the prosecution mechanism under the Income Tax law with the prevailing general criminal procedure statute (CrPC or BNSS).

      The shift from the CrPC to the BNSS in Clause 498 is part of a broader legislative and policy initiative to modernize and indigenize India's criminal procedure framework. The BNSS, enacted in 2023, is intended to replace the colonial-era CrPC with a more contemporary, citizen-centric code. Consequently, Clause 498's reference to the BNSS signifies the legislature's intent to ensure that tax prosecutions are conducted under the most current procedural law, thereby harmonizing tax enforcement with the evolving criminal justice system.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Application of BNSS to Special Court Proceedings

      Clause 498(1) provides that, unless otherwise specified in the Income Tax Bill, the provisions of the BNSS, including those relating to bail and bonds, shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court. Furthermore, the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court is deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.

      This sub-clause establishes two important legal norms:

      • Application of BNSS: All procedural aspects, such as investigation, trial, evidence, bail, and other matters, are to be governed by the BNSS, unless the Income Tax Bill provides otherwise. This ensures procedural consistency and leverages the comprehensive framework of the BNSS for tax prosecutions.
      • Status of Prosecutor: The prosecutor in such proceedings is statutorily deemed to be a Public Prosecutor, thereby conferring upon them all the rights, duties, and protections available to Public Prosecutors under the BNSS.

      Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors

      Clause 498(2) empowers the Central Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for any specific case or group of cases. This discretionary power is significant in cases involving complex, high-profile, or sensitive tax offences, where specialized legal expertise may be required.

      The provision allows the government flexibility in resource allocation and ensures that particularly challenging cases can be handled by prosecutors with specialized skills, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of enforcement.

      Qualification Criteria for Prosecutors

      Clause 498(3) prescribes that no person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this section unless they have been in practice as an advocate for at least seven years and possess special knowledge of law.

      This clause ensures the appointment of experienced and competent legal professionals, which is critical for the prosecution of complex tax offences. The requirement of "special knowledge of law" further underscores the necessity for expertise, not merely experience, thereby raising the standard of prosecution.

      Deeming Provision and Reference to BNSS

      Clause 498(4) provides that every person appointed as a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor under this section shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 2(v) of the BNSS, and the provisions of the BNSS shall apply accordingly.

      This deeming provision ensures that all legal consequences, powers, and duties associated with Public Prosecutors under the BNSS are automatically extended to persons appointed under Clause 498. It also eliminates any potential ambiguity regarding the legal status or authority of such prosecutors.

        Comparative Analysis with Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961

        1. Statutory Reference: BNSS vs. CrPC

        The most significant distinction between Clause 498 and Section 280D is the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The BNSS, as a successor to the CrPC, is intended to modernize and adapt criminal procedure to contemporary Indian realities, emphasizing citizen-centric justice, digital processes, and streamlined investigation and trial mechanisms.

        While both provisions ensure that the general criminal procedural law applies to tax prosecutions, the adoption of the BNSS in Clause 498 marks a legislative update reflecting the government's intention to keep the procedural framework current and consistent with the overarching criminal law regime.

        2. Structure and Content: Substantive Parity

        A clause-by-clause comparison reveals that the structure and substantive content of Clause 498 and Section 280D are largely identical, with the primary difference being the statutory reference (BNSS vs. CrPC) and the corresponding definitions sections (section 2(v) of BNSS vs. section 2(u) of CrPC).

        ProvisionClause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961
        Application of Procedural LawBNSS, 2023CrPC, 1973
        Scope (Bail, Bonds, etc.)Explicitly includedExplicitly included
        Deeming Prosecutor as Public ProsecutorYesYes
        Appointment of Special Public ProsecutorPermitted for any case/class/groupPermitted for any case/class/group
        Qualification Criteria7 years advocacy + special knowledge of law7 years advocacy + special knowledge of law
        Deeming Provision (Definition)Section 2(v) of BNSS 2023Section 2(u) of CrPC

        3. Ambiguities and Interpretational Issues

        Both provisions are drafted with clarity, but some potential interpretational issues may arise:

        • "Special knowledge of law": The phrase is not defined and may give rise to disputes regarding the precise qualifications required. Judicial interpretation or executive clarification may be necessary.
        • Transition Issues: The transition from CrPC to BNSS may create procedural uncertainties for cases initiated under the old regime but pending at the time of enactment. Transitional provisions or judicial clarification may be required to address such scenarios.
        • Overlap with Other Laws: In cases involving offences under multiple statutes, the interplay between BNSS and other special laws may require careful harmonization to avoid conflicts.

        4. Unique Features and Policy Implications

        The adoption of the BNSS in Clause 498 is a unique feature, reflecting the government's commitment to updating the legal framework in line with new legislative developments. The BNSS introduces several innovations, such as digital procedures, witness protection, and enhanced victim rights, which may indirectly impact tax prosecutions.

        Additionally, the explicit provision for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in both provisions ensures that complex or high-value cases can be prosecuted with the requisite expertise, thereby strengthening enforcement.

        Practical Implications

        For Stakeholders

        • Accused Persons: Accused individuals in tax prosecution cases will be subject to the procedures, rights, and remedies available under the BNSS, including those relating to bail, trial procedure, and appeals.
        • Prosecutors: Prosecutors must meet higher qualification standards and are endowed with the powers and responsibilities of Public Prosecutors under the BNSS, ensuring professional conduct and accountability.
        • Regulators and Enforcement Agencies: Tax authorities and enforcement agencies must align their procedures and case preparation with the requirements of the BNSS, necessitating training and process adjustments.
        • Legal Community: Advocates seeking appointment as prosecutors must possess at least seven years' experience and special legal knowledge, potentially raising the bar for appointments.

        Compliance and Procedural Impact

        • All procedural steps in prosecution, from investigation to trial and sentencing, will be governed by the BNSS, requiring adaptation by all stakeholders.
        • Appointment processes for prosecutors must ensure compliance with the enhanced qualification criteria.
        • Special Public Prosecutors can be appointed for complex or sensitive cases, providing flexibility and specialization in prosecution.

        Conclusion

        Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 is a forward-looking statutory provision that seeks to align the prosecution of tax offences with the latest criminal procedure code, the BNSS, 2023. Its structure and content are substantially similar to Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the key difference being the replacement of the CrPC with the BNSS. This change is emblematic of a broader legislative trend towards modernization and indigenization of India's criminal justice system.

        The provision maintains high standards for the appointment of prosecutors, ensures procedural uniformity, and provides flexibility for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. While the transition to the BNSS may necessitate adjustments in practice and procedure, it is expected to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness of tax prosecutions. Areas that may require further clarification include the definition of "special knowledge of law" and the handling of transitional cases.

        Overall, Clause 498 represents a significant but evolutionary change in the procedural landscape of tax prosecutions, reflecting the legislature's intent to keep the law current, effective, and in harmony with broader legal reforms.


        Full Text:

        Clause 498 Application of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to proceedings before Special Court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax