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

      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