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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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

      Comparison of Section 166 "Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 166 Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 166 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out the mechanism whereby an Assessing Officer may refer determination of arm's length price in relation to international transactions or specified domestic transactions to a designated Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It affects taxpayers engaging in related-party cross-border and specified domestic dealings, the Income-tax Department (Assessing Officers and TPOs), and compliance workflows around transfer pricing. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 166 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version); cross-references to sections 165, 171, 172, 286, 287, 288, 246, 252, 253 and Chapter XVI-B are included. The provision governs referral, notice and determination procedures for arm's length pricing, the temporal application of such determinations to subsequent tax years via an opt-in mechanism, powers of the Transfer Pricing Officer, correction of apparent mistakes and administrative guidelines. Definitions: "Transfer Pricing Officer" is defined in the Clause (last sub-section) as a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board to perform functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 165 and 171 in respect of any person or class of persons.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 166 applies where an assessee has entered into an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction in any tax year and the Assessing Officer considers it necessary to refer the determination of arm's length price to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), subject to prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The TPO determination process includes issuance of notice to produce evidence, hearing the assessee, gathering and considering materials, and issuing a written order determining the arm's length price as per section 165(4). The TPO must send a copy of the order to the Assessing Officer and the assessee.

      Interpretation

      The Clause contemplates a two-tiered administrative model: initial assessment functions remain with the Assessing Officer, but specialized determination of arm's length price may be delegated (by referral) to a TPO. The text mandates prior approval of senior supervisory officers (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) for a reference. The Clause prescribes that the TPO's order is binding on the Assessing Officer for purposes of computing total income (section 165(6)), subject to the special opt-in regime for applying a determined price to two subsequent tax years. The procedural steps (notice, hearing, consideration of documents, and written order) indicate an administrative due-process architecture. The reference to prescribed form, manner and period for exercising the opt-in indicates delegated rule-making scope; similar language governs conditions attached to validating options.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      - No reference under sub-section (1) shall be made if the TPO has declared an option exercised by the assessee under sub-section (9) to be valid for that tax year (sub-section (2)).

      - If a reference is made for a tax year for which an option has been or will be declared valid, sub-section (1) shall have effect as if no reference were made (sub-section (3)).

      - Sub-section (9) provides an opt-in mechanism: an arm's length price determined by the TPO for a tax year may apply to similar transactions for the two consecutive tax years immediately following, if the assessee exercises an option for those years in prescribed form, manner and time, and the TPO declares the option valid within one month from the end of the month in which the option is exercised. The opt-in does not apply to proceedings under Chapter XVI-B (sub-section (10)).

      - Sub-section (12) provides that where the TPO declares the option valid, the TPO shall examine and determine the arm's length price for the two consecutive years and on receipt of such order the Assessing Officer shall recompute the assessee's income as per the provisions of section 288 (text states "section 288").

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee enters into an international transaction in tax year 2024-25. The Assessing Officer refers pricing to the TPO with Principal Commissioner approval. The TPO issues notice, hears the assessee, and issues an order under sub-section (6) determining arm's length price. The Assessing Officer computes total income in conformity with that order u/s 165(6). (Textual sequence: referral -> notice -> determination -> AO computation.)
      • Example 2: Following the TPO order for 2024-25, the assessee exercises the option under sub-section (9) for 2025-26 and 2026-27. The TPO, within one month from the end of the month in which the option is exercised, declares the option valid. The TPO then examines and determines arm's length price for those two years and sends orders; the Assessing Officer recomputes income for those years as per section 288. (This scenario presumes the option and declaration steps set out in sub-sections (9) and (12).)

      Interplay

      Clause 166 cross-references section 165(4) for the substantive method of arm's length determination, section 171(2) for documents/information referenced at hearing, section 172 (reporting obligations) and sections 286/287/288 concerning limitation, amendment/rectification and recomputation procedures. It disapplies the opt-in in relation to Chapter XVI-B proceedings. The TPO is empowered to exercise specified powers u/ss 246(1)(a)-(d), 252(1)(a) or 253 for purposes of determining arm's length price, aligning investigative powers with existing procedural provisions.

      Differences between Clause 166 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Section 166 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 

      TopicClause 166 (Bill, Old Version)Section 166 (Act, 2025)
      Limitation language for timing of TPO orderSub-section (7) in Bill: "an order under sub-section (6) may be made at any time before sixty days before the expiry of limitation period referred to in section 286, or 296, for making the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment." (ambiguous phrasing)Section 166 (Act): Sub-section (7) states an order may be made "at any time sixty days before the expiry of the limitation period" (clearer formulation).
      Extension where remaining period < 60 daysBill sub-section (8) refers to circumstances in section 286(3)(b) or (i).Act sub-section (8) refers to section 286(3)(b) or (h).
      Opt-in prescription wordingBill uses "as prescribed" in sub-section (9)(b) and (c) uses "as prescribed".Act uses "as may be prescribed" consistently.
      Provision for guidelines - temporal limitBill contains an express sunset: "No guideline under sub-section (15) shall be issued after the expiration of two years from the 1st April, 2026." (sub-section (16) in Bill).Act does not contain this two-year prohibition; instead, Act has provisions on laying guidelines before Parliament (numbering differs).
      Parliamentary laying and numberingBill: Parliamentary laying provision is sub-section (17); definition of TPO is sub-section (18).Act: Parliamentary laying provision appears as sub-section (16) and definition of TPO as sub-section (17).
      Recomputation reference for two yearsBill sub-section (12) directs the Assessing Officer to recompute income "as per the provisions of section 288."Act sub-section (12) references recomputation "as per the provisions of section 288(2)." (more specific).

      Practical impact of those differences: the Act's clearer timing language reduces ambiguity about the deadline for TPO orders; the change from references to subsections of section 286 (i)/(h) could affect which circumstances trigger limitation extension and thus the time available to TPOs; the sunset on issuing guidelines in the Bill (two-year cutoff) would have limited the Board's delegated power to issue guidelines after a set date - its absence in the Act means continued open-ended guideline authority (subject to parliamentary laying). The specificity of section references for recomputation (section 288(2) in the Act versus section 288 in the Bill) narrows procedural applicability and could affect rectification/recomputation mechanics. Numbering and minor drafting variations may create interpretive questions but do not alter the core referral framework.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers with related-party international or specified domestic transactions face potential referral to a TPO, which centralises technical scrutiny of transfer pricing. The opt-in mechanism creates an incentive to regularise pricing for two subsequent years but requires strict adherence to prescribed forms, manner and timelines (prescription itself: Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Clause emphasises production of evidence on which the assessee relies and references documents/information u/s 171(2). Accordingly, contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation, contractual records, benchmarking studies and supporting data are necessary for the TPO hearing. Specific documentary lists or formats: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Assessing Officer may, with prior approval, refer arm's length price determination to a designated Transfer Pricing Officer for international and specified domestic transactions.
      • The TPO follows a formal notice, evidence, hearing and written order procedure; the order is sent to the Assessing Officer and the assessee and governs computation u/s 165(6).
      • An opt-in allows a TPO's arm's length determination for one year to be applied to similar transactions for the two immediately following years, subject to prescribed conditions and a TPO validation step.
      • The Clause confers on the TPO certain powers to require information and to amend orders for mistakes apparent from record, and cross-links to other assessment and limitation provisions.
      • Details on prescribed forms/manner/period for option exercise, timelines for AO/TPO actions beyond those specified, and effective date/commencement are not provided in the Clause ("Not stated in the document.").

      Full Text:

      Section 166 Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax