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
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
    Assessing Officer's Duty to Notify Losses : Clause 291 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 157 ...
    Statutory mechanism for the modification and revision of demand notices : Clause 290 of Income Tax B...
    Examination of Notice of Demand Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Procedural Amendments and Rectification under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 288 of Income Tax Bill,...
    Procedural Safeguards and Rectification under Indian Tax Law : Clause 287 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Reforming Assessment Timelines of assessment, reassessment, and recomputation of income : Clause 286...
    procedural aspects of assessment, reassessment, and recomputation where income has allegedly escaped...
    From Faceless Assessment to Executive Schemes : Clause 532 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Authority and Accountability in Reopening Assessments : Clause 284 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Expanding the Framework for Assessment in Consequence of Appellate Orders : Clause 283 of the Income...
    The Changing Landscape of Reassessment Notices in Indian Tax Law : Clause 282 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    The New Framework for Reassessment Notices, Balancing Revenue Powers and Taxpayer Rights : Clause 28...
    Modernizing the Reassessment Notice Regime in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 280 of the Income Tax B...
    Procedural and Substantive Shifts in Income Escaping Assessment : Clause 279 of Income Tax Bill, 202...
    Timing of Income Recognition of Compensation and Incentives : Clause 278 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Valuation of Inventory and Securities under Indian Tax Law : Clause 277 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Legal Framework and Practical Impact of Method of Accounting under Indian Income Tax : Clause 276 of...
    Comparative Legal Analysis of the DRP Mechanism : Clause 275 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sectio...
    Procedures and Legal Safeguards of "impermissible avoidance arrangements" (IAAs) : Clause 274 of the...
    Future of Faceless Assessment :Clause 273 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 144B of the Incom...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Intimation of loss: AO must issue written notification to enable carry forward and set-off of assessed losses.
    Clause 291 requires the Assessing Officer to notify the assessee by written order of the amount of loss computed for specified loss heads where a loss is established during assessment and is eligible for carry forward and set-off under the Bill; the written notification is the formal basis for claiming loss benefits in subsequent years, while the clause omits an express timeline, remedies for non-notification, and explicit treatment of appeal or rectification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Modification of tax demand notices: AO must revise demands to reflect insolvency orders and subsequent appellate modifications.
    Clause 290 requires the Assessing Officer to serve a modified demand notice treated as a demand under the restructured Act where an earlier demand is reduced by an order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, covering tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum, and mandates further revision if the insolvency order is altered on appeal.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Notice of demand: modernised formal notice and deferment for start up share compensation, aligning tax timing with liquidity events.
    Notice of demand is the statutory precondition for recovery: Clause 289(1) mandates issuance in a prescribed form for any payable sum following an order; Clause 289(2) deems certain system-generated intimations equivalent to notices to streamline automated recovery; Clause 289(3) defers tax on specified securities or sweat equity for eligible start-up employees until defined liquidity or employment-trigger events, thereby aligning tax payment timing with cash realization.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification of assessments: new provision expands AO authority to amend orders for subsequent events and compliance.
    Clause 288 consolidates and prescribes time-bound powers for Assessing Officers to amend assessment orders when subsequent judicial, administrative or factual events render original assessments incorrect, covering partner/AOP adjustments, recomputation for carry-forward losses, capital gains recharacterisation, foreign tax credit, TDS credit timing, transfer pricing amendments and related categories, with generally four-year limitation periods and an emphasis on digital procedural integration.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record: updated authority scope, procedural safeguards, and prescribed timelines ensure corrective relief.
    Clause 287 empowers income-tax authorities to rectify mistakes apparent from the record by amending orders and specified intimations, subject to the exclusion of matters already considered in appeal or revision. Rectification may be initiated suo motu or on application, but any amendment increasing liability requires prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard and must be made by written order. Reductions of liability trigger refund obligations, increases trigger prescribed demand notices, and the power is constrained by a prescribed limitation period and a statutory timeline for disposal of applications.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for tax assessments clarified: tabular framework sets fixed periods, exclusions and minimum residual time for authorities.
    Reform replaces narrative limitation provisions with a tabular, scenario-based regime specifying trigger dates and fixed completion periods-generally one year for routine assessments and reassessments-with special shorter windows for modifications. The draft adds a twelve-month extension for transfer pricing references, an exhaustive list of periods to be excluded from limitation computations (stays, reopenings, treaty exchanges, GAAR references, valuation reports, advance rulings, search handovers, etc.), and safeguards ensuring minimum residual time for authorities, end-of-month extensions, and abatement/revival protections to preserve procedural continuity.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax rate parity: reassessment must use original-year rates, allowing dropping of proceedings if no extra liability.
    Clause 285 requires tax in assessments, reassessments or recomputations for escaped income to be charged at the rates that would have applied had the income been originally assessed; allows the Assessing Officer to drop reassessment proceedings if the assessee demonstrates that inclusion of the alleged escaped income would not increase tax liability and that the original assessment was not impugned under specified appellate or revision provisions; and bars the assessee from reopening matters concluded by certain specified orders once a claim to drop proceedings is made.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Executive power to frame tax administration schemes may reshape processes while raising delegation and legal certainty concerns.
    Clause 532 empowers the Central Government to notify schemes for any purpose under the Act to eliminate taxpayer-authority interface and optimize resources; it authorises modification or suspension of statutory provisions by notification to implement schemes, permits amendment of existing schemes for transitional continuity, and requires notifications be laid before Parliament, thereby enabling broad administrative reconfiguration through subordinate legislation while raising delegation, transparency, and legal certainty concerns.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Sanction authority centralization for reopening assessments shifts approval to Additional/Joint Commissioners, reducing prior higher level oversight.
    Clause 284 appoints Additional Commissioners, Additional Directors, Joint Commissioners, or Joint Directors as the sole authorities to grant sanction for notices under sections 280 and 281, replacing the earlier tiered sanction regime. It removes temporal thresholds and higher level approvals formerly applied to older or complex cases, centralizes decision making, omits explanatory and delegation provisions present in the prior framework, and may therefore streamline administration while raising concerns about reduced oversight, interpretive ambiguity, and possible increased litigation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Giving effect to appellate findings: reassessment notices may issue despite limitation, subject to safeguards preventing reopening time barred years.
    Clause 283 (Income Tax Bill, 2025) and Section 150 (Income tax Act, 1961) permit issuance of assessment, reassessment or recomputation notices to give effect to a finding or direction in appellate, revisional or judicial orders, explicitly including tribunals and Approving Panel directions in the 2025 Bill. Both provisions preserve a limitation safeguard: notices cannot be issued if, when the original order (or reference to the Approving Panel) was made, the relevant year's assessment was already time barred. Notices must show a direct nexus to the operative finding or direction and remain subject to procedural requirements.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation periods for reassessment notices extended and a minimum cooling-off period introduced, retaining high-value reopening threshold.
    Clause 282 restructures limitation periods for notices under sections 280 and 281 by extending both standard and extended windows for reopening, retaining a high-value threshold that requires the Assessing Officer to possess books, documents or other evidence of substantial escapement, and by introducing a mandatory minimum cooling-off period before any notice may be issued; it does not explicitly replicate earlier exclusions for time spent in show-cause proceedings, court stays, or special provisions for foreign assets, creating potential interpretive gaps.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-notice hearing requirement: show cause with disclosed information, supervisory approval required before reassessment notices.
    Clause 281 requires that where the AO has information suggesting income has escaped assessment, the AO must serve a show cause notice accompanied by that information, allow the assessee to reply within the period specified, and, after considering the record and any reply, obtain prior approval of the specified authority before passing an order on whether to issue a notice under section 280. The clause omits explicit timelines, does not define the specified authority within the clause, and provides broader exceptions to the pre-notice requirement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notice reform: information-driven reopening with prescribed timelines and mandatory higher-level approval to ensure procedural safeguards.
    Clause 280 requires the AO to issue a notice with a copy of the relevant order before reassessment, sets a maximum three-month period to furnish a prescribed, verified return, treats timely returns as equivalent to original returns while disallowing that status for belated filings, mandates that issuance be predicated on "information" suggesting escapement, and requires prior approval of a specified authority where information derives from centralized schemes, Approving Panel directions, or judicial/quasi-judicial orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment powers expand to permit assessment of escaped income and collateral issues even where certain procedural steps were missed.
    Clause 279 empowers the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income and recompute losses, depreciation and other allowances where income escaping assessment is identified, substitutes "tax year" for "assessment year," and, while making AO's powers subject to sections 280-286, permits assessment of other issues that emerge during proceedings even if specified procedural sections were not complied with, thereby prioritising substantive tax determination over technical procedural infirmities.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Timing of income recognition: interest on compensation taxed on receipt; escalation claims taxed on reasonable certainty of realisation.
    Clause 278 deems interest on compensation or enhanced compensation taxable in the tax year of actual receipt, treats escalation claims and export incentives as income when reasonable certainty of realisation is achieved, and taxes specified incomes under section 2(49)(w) on receipt if not earlier charged, thereby aligning taxability with receipt or demonstrable certainty and aiming to prevent timing gaps while leaving factual application issues like allocation and evidentiary standards to further guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Inventory valuation rules require ICDS aligned costing, inclusion of statutory levies, and category wise securities valuation for tax computation.
    Inventory and securities for tax purposes must be valued in accordance with ICDS: inventory at the lower of actual cost or net realisable value, purchases, sales and inventory adjusted to include any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred to bring goods or services to present location and condition; illiquid or unquoted securities at actual cost and regularly quoted securities at the lower of cost or NRV, with securities compared category wise and special treatment for scheduled banks and public financial institutions subject to prudential guidelines.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Method of accounting: mandatory consistency and binding tax standards lead to AO power to assess by best judgment.
    Clause 276 permits either the cash or mercantile system for computing income provided the system is regularly followed, authorises the Central Government to notify binding Income Computation and Disclosure Standards for classes of assessees or income, and empowers the Assessing Officer to disregard accounts and make a best judgment assessment where accounts are incorrect or incomplete, the accounting method is not regularly followed, or notified ICDS are not applied.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Panel mechanism: statutory draft-order review with binding, reasoned directions and strict timelines for tax variations.
    Clause 275 establishes a DRP mechanism requiring the AO to forward draft assessment orders with prejudicial variations to eligible assessees; assessees have thirty days to accept or object. The DRP, a collegium of three senior officers, may issue written, reasoned directions (confirming, reducing, or enhancing variations) within nine months; such directions are binding on the AO. The clause updates cross-references, vests rule-making power in the Board, and excludes specified proceedings and persons, while omitting an explicit statutory scheme for faceless DRP proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Impermissible avoidance arrangements: GAAR procedure mandates reference, Approving Panel review, and binding directions with safeguards.
    Clause 274 creates a multi-stage GAAR procedure: the Assessing Officer may refer suspected impermissible avoidance arrangements to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, who must notify the assessee and allow objections; absent or unsatisfactory responses permit directions or escalation to an independent Approving Panel. The Approving Panel, composed of a High Court judge, a senior revenue officer, and an academic, may summon evidence, hold hearings, and issue binding directions within set timelines; such directions are final under the Act, subject only to constitutional judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment set as statutory default under proposed bill, expanding electronic non-contact tax assessments and procedural framework.
    Clause 273 makes faceless assessment the statutory default for specified assessments, empowers the Board to define applicability, establishes a National Faceless Assessment Centre with Assessment, Verification, Technical and Review Units, assigns distinct functions to each unit to minimize discretion, mandates electronic communications via the NFAC, and contemplates transfers to the jurisdictional officer where faceless procedure is unsuitable, with procedural details to be prescribed by the Board.

    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