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

      Analysis of Registered Valuer Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 513 Appearance by registered valuer in certain matters.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the procedural right of an assessee to be represented by a registered valuer before income-tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal in matters concerning the valuation of assets. The ability to appear through a registered valuer is a significant procedural safeguard, particularly given the technical and specialized nature of valuation disputes within the income tax framework. The introduction of Clause 513 in the proposed Bill signals an effort to modernize, clarify, and potentially harmonize the procedural aspects of appearance by registered valuers with contemporary regulatory and professional standards. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 513, its objectives, operative features, and implications, followed by a detailed comparative analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The discussion is structured to address each provision's legislative intent, scope, practical ramifications, and interpretative nuances, culminating in a critical assessment of potential reforms and future directions.

      Objective and Purpose

      Legislative Intent and Policy Rationale:- The core objective behind permitting appearance by a registered valuer is to facilitate the fair and efficient resolution of valuation-related disputes, recognizing the highly technical nature of such matters. Taxpayers, who may lack expertise in asset valuation, are thus enabled to engage professionals with specialized knowledge, thereby ensuring that their interests are adequately represented and that the proceedings are informed by expert input. Both Clause 513 and Section 287A reflect a legislative policy of procedural fairness and access to technical representation, but Clause 513 in the new Bill also appears to be part of a broader effort to update and codify procedural rights in line with current regulatory and professional standards for valuers.

      Historical Background:- Section 287A was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, effective from 1 January 1973, at a time when valuation disputes were becoming increasingly complex, particularly with the advent of wealth tax and the need for standardized valuation practices. The provision drew upon the concept of a "registered valuer" as defined under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to ensure that only qualified professionals could represent assessees in valuation matters. Clause 513, as proposed in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, updates this framework, reflecting changes in the regulatory environment for valuers, including the establishment of new registration and oversight mechanisms.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Breakdown of Key Provisions

      1. Sub-Clause (1): Right to Representation by Registered Valuer
        Clause 513(1) provides that any assessee entitled or required to attend before an income-tax authority or the Appellate Tribunal in matters relating to the valuation of any asset may attend through a registered valuer.
        • Scope:The provision applies to all valuation matters, whether the attendance is required or merely permitted, and covers proceedings before both income-tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal.
        • Nature of Representation:The use of the word "may attend through a registered valuer" provides the assessee with a discretionary right, not an obligation, to be represented by a registered valuer.
        • Technical Focus:The provision is specifically limited to "matters relating to the valuation of any asset," underscoring the technical nature of the representation permitted.
      2. Sub-Clause (2): Exception for Personal Examination
        Clause 513(2) carves out an exception, providing that the right to representation by a registered valuer does not apply where the assessee is required to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation u/s 246.
        • Purpose of Exception: This exception preserves the authority's power to directly examine the assessee in certain circumstances, typically where personal knowledge or intent is at issue and cannot be substituted by professional representation.
        • Reference to Section 246: The cross-reference to section 246 (presumably the section in the new Bill governing examination on oath or affirmation) ensures consistency with other procedural safeguards and investigative powers.
      3. Sub-Clause (3): Definition of Registered Valuer
        Clause 513(3) defines "registered valuer" as a person registered u/s 514 of the Bill.
        • Regulatory Clarity:By providing an internal reference to section 514, the Bill seeks to establish a self-contained and updated regulatory framework for valuers, moving away from reliance on definitions in other statutes such as the Wealth-tax Act.
        • Professionalization: This signals a move towards a more robust, centralized, and possibly more stringent regime for the registration and oversight of valuers.

      Interpretative Considerations and Ambiguities

      • Scope of "Valuation of Any Asset": The phrase is broad and may encompass a wide range of assets (tangible and intangible). However, the provision does not specify whether it applies to both direct and indirect valuation issues, or to disputes over methodology versus quantum.
      • Nature of Proceedings Covered: The provision covers both "entitled or required" attendance, suggesting it applies to both voluntary and mandatory appearances, but does not clarify whether it extends to all stages of proceedings or only to hearings.
      • Exclusion for Personal Examination: The exception is clear, but the threshold for when an assessee is "required to attend personally" may be subject to administrative discretion, potentially leading to inconsistent application.
      • Definition of Registered Valuer: By tying the definition to section 514, the Bill centralizes regulatory authority but may also create transitional issues for valuers registered under previous regimes.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Textual Comparison

      AspectSection 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Right to RepresentationAssessee may attend by a registered valuer in valuation matters before income-tax authority or Appellate TribunalAssessee may attend through a registered valuer in matters relating to valuation of any asset before income-tax authority or Appellate Tribunal
      Exception for Personal AttendanceDoes not apply when required to attend personally u/s 131 for examination on oath or affirmationDoes not apply when required to attend personally u/s 246 for examination on oath or affirmation
      Definition of Registered ValuerAs per clause (oaa) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957As per section 514 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Key Differences and Their Implications

      1. Reference to the Definition of Registered Valuer
        • Section 287A relies on the definition in the Wealth-tax Act, which may be outdated or inconsistent with current professional standards.
        • Clause 513 creates a self-contained definition by referencing section 514 of the new Bill, likely reflecting updated registration, qualification, and regulatory requirements.
        • Implication: This shift modernizes the regulatory framework and may improve the quality and accountability of valuers appearing in tax proceedings.
      2. Reference to Examination on Oath or Affirmation
        • Section 287A refers to section 131 of the 1961 Act, which deals with the powers of authorities regarding discovery, production of evidence, and attendance for examination.
        • Clause 513 refers to section 246 of the new Bill, indicating a renumbering or restructuring of the procedural provisions.
        • Implication: The substance remains similar, but the cross-reference ensures that the procedural framework is internally consistent within the new Bill.
      3. Wording and Scope
        • Both provisions are similarly worded, but Clause 513 uses "may attend through a registered valuer," while Section 287A uses "may attend by a registered valuer." The difference is largely stylistic and does not appear to alter the substantive right.
        • Clause 513's language is slightly more modern and precise, aligning with contemporary drafting standards.
      4. Regulatory Modernization
        • The move from reliance on the Wealth-tax Act's definition to an internally defined regime for valuers is significant, as it allows the legislature to set qualifications, standards, and disciplinary mechanisms that are tailored to current needs.
        • This may also facilitate harmonization with the regulatory regime for valuers under other statutes, such as the Companies Act, 2013, which introduced a new regime for registered valuers.

      Potential Areas of Overlap and Conflict

      • During the transition from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill, there may be issues regarding the recognition of valuers registered under the old regime. The Bill should ideally provide transitional provisions to clarify the status of such valuers.
      • There may also be interpretative challenges in aligning the scope of "valuation matters" under the new Bill with established jurisprudence under the 1961 Act.

      Practical Implications for Stakeholders

      A. For Businesses and Individuals

      • The continued right to representation by a registered valuer is crucial, especially for corporates and high-net-worth individuals with complex assets.
      • The modernization of the regulatory regime for valuers may increase confidence in the integrity and quality of valuation evidence.
      • Assessees must ensure that their valuers are registered under the new regime to avoid procedural objections.

      B. For Registered Valuers

      • The new regime may require existing valuers to update their registration or meet new qualification/experience criteria.
      • There may be a need for continuing professional development to comply with updated standards.

      C. For Tax Authorities and the Tribunal

      • The updated framework may necessitate training or capacity building to assess and challenge technical valuation evidence effectively.
      • The authorities may also need to update their procedural manuals and forms to reflect the new regime.

      Conclusion

      Clause 513 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a thoughtful continuation and modernization of the procedural right of assessees to be represented by registered valuers in valuation matters. By updating the definition and regulatory framework for valuers, the Bill seeks to enhance the quality, credibility, and integrity of valuation evidence in tax proceedings. The exceptions for personal examination preserve the authorities' investigative powers, striking an appropriate balance between procedural fairness and administrative efficacy. The comparative analysis with Section 287A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reveals that while the core right remains unchanged, the new Bill introduces important regulatory and drafting improvements. The shift to an internally defined regime for valuers is particularly significant, aligning the tax law with contemporary professional standards and regulatory practices. Stakeholders must, however, be alert to transitional issues and ensure compliance with the updated regime. As valuation disputes continue to be a critical aspect of tax litigation, the role of registered valuers-and the statutory framework governing their participation-will remain central to the fair and effective administration of tax law. Further reforms may be required to address emerging challenges, such as the valuation of intangible assets, digital assets, and cross-border interests, but Clause 513 provides a strong foundation for the future.


      Full Text:

      Clause 513 Appearance by registered valuer in certain matters.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax