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

      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