Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 237 "Appointment of income-tax authorities." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

6 September, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Section 237 Appointment of income-tax authorities.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The documents are two textual records of provision 237 governing the appointment of income-tax authorities: one presented as Section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, and the other as Clause 237 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both set out the Central Government's power to appoint income-tax authorities, delegate appointment powers downward, and permit authorised income-tax authorities to engage executive or ministerial staff. The provisions primarily affect the Central Government, the Board (presumably the Board of Direct Taxes), senior tax officers and subordinate officers, and taxpayers indirectly (through administrative organisation). Effective dates or decision dates: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: the provision is presented as part of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and as Clause 237 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Context: the clause/section falls under the heading "Authorities, jurisdiction and functions" and has the short title "Appointment of income-tax authorities." Coverage: appointment powers of the Central Government; delegation of appointment authority to various organisational tiers (the Board, Principal Director General/Director General, Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, Principal Director/Director, Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) to appoint officers below Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner; and power for authorised income-tax authorities to appoint executive or ministerial staff necessary to assist in functions. Definitions or explanatory provisions: Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

The textual ingredients in both documents are substantively identical. The provision comprises three sub-sections:

  • Sub-section (1): "The Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be income-tax authorities." This is a plenary appointing power vested in the Central Government, without expressed limitation in the text on whom or on what criteria the Government may appoint.
  • Sub-section (2): The Central Government may, "subject to the rules and its orders regulating the conditions of service of persons in public services and posts," authorise the Board or specified senior authorities (Principal Director General/Director General; Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner; Principal Director/Director; Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) to appoint income-tax authorities below the rank of Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. The clause delineates delegation of appointment power for subordinate ranks, but places express qualification by "rules and ... orders" regulating conditions of service.
  • Sub-section (3): Subject to the same qualification (rules and orders of the Central Government regulating the conditions of service of persons in public services and posts), an income-tax authority authorised by the Board may appoint such executive or ministerial staff as may be necessary to assist it in the execution of its functions. This permits internal staffing for administrative support, again subject to overarching service rules and orders.

Interpretation

The text indicates a legislature intent to centralise the ultimate appointing power while enabling hierarchical delegation for practical administration. By using broad language - "may appoint such persons as it thinks fit" and "may ... authorise" - the provision confers discretionary authority rather than mandatory duties. The repeated qualifying phrase "subject to the rules and its orders regulating the conditions of service of persons in public services and posts" signals that appointments and delegations must conform to procedural and substantive service regulations made by the Central Government (or existing civil service rules). The reference to the Board and to named classes of senior officers suggests an administrative structure wherein appointment authority is transferred internally to promote operational efficiency, while maintaining ultimate control with the Central Government.

Exceptions/Provisos

No express exceptions or provisos other than the qualifications noted in the text. Specific carve-outs, thresholds, minimum qualifications, selection procedures, tenure, confirmation, probation, or pay scales are not stated in the document. The text only restricts delegated appointments to ranks "below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner." Any other exceptions: Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: The Central Government appoints a Commissioner of Income-tax to head a regional charge - consistent with sub-section (1). (This is a straightforward reading of the power; the document provides the enabling text but no example.)
  • Example 2: The Central Government authorises the Principal Commissioner to appoint an Income-tax Officer at a level below Deputy Commissioner to manage a local assessment unit, subject to applicable service rules. (The document authorises this practice; procedural specifics are not provided.)
  • Example 3: A Board-authorised income-tax authority appoints clerical staff to support assessment functions, within the constraints of Central Government service orders. (The provision permits such staff appointments; details like appointment mode and grade are not stated.)

Interplay

Interaction with other provisions, Rules, Notifications or Circulars: The provision explicitly defers to "the rules and its orders regulating the conditions of service of persons in public services and posts." However, the document does not identify or reproduce any particular Rules, orders, or subordinate legislation by name or citation. Where such Rules exist, they will determine conditions of service, procedures for delegation, and possibly the cadre structure; however, the text here does not specify those instruments. Any cross-references to appointment procedures in other statutory provisions or to the composition and powers of the Board: Not stated in the document.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: The obligation to follow "rules and ... orders regulating the conditions of service" will make adherence to service rules central in any appointment or delegation process. Risk of challenge may arise if appointments or delegations are made in breach of relevant service rules or orders. The text itself does not enumerate procedural safeguards, selection criteria, or appeal remedies - absence of these details may lead to administrative disputes. Specific timelines or appeal mechanisms: Not stated in the document.
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the delegation mechanism, keeping formal records of (i) the Central Government's authorisations to the Board or specified officers; (ii) orders by the Board authorising subordinate officers; and (iii) the service rules/orders relied upon would be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the statutory proviso. The statutory text refers to "authorise" and "subject to the rules and its orders" - documentary proof of those authorisations and conformity with rules would be relevant in any judicial or administrative review. Detailed record formats or retention periods: Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

  • The provision vests plenary appointment power in the Central Government to appoint income-tax authorities.
  • The Central Government may delegate appointment powers to the Board and specified senior tax officers for appointments below Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, subject to service rules and orders.
  • Authorised income-tax authorities can appoint executive and ministerial staff necessary for carrying out functions, again subject to service rules and orders.
  • The text emphasises conformity with "rules and ... orders regulating the conditions of service," but does not specify those rules or the procedural modalities for appointment or delegation.
  • Documentary proof of authorisations and compliance with service rules will be pivotal to defend appointments against challenge; however, procedural safeguards, appeal routes, qualifications, and effective dates are not specified.

Differences Between the Two Documents and Practical Impact

Substantively, the textual provisions in Document 1 (Section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 237 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)) are identical in wording across the three sub-sections. The only material divergence is that Document 2 includes an explanatory sentence following the clause text: "Clause 237 of the Bill seeks to provide for the appointment of income-tax authorities by the Central Government by framing rules and orders for regulating conditions of service and to authorise the Board or subordinate authorities, to appoint income-tax authorities below the rank of a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner and also other executive or ministerial staff." This is a descriptive summary and does not alter the operative statutory wording.

Practical impact of this difference:

  • The inclusion of the explanatory sentence in Document 2 has only interpretive utility; it summarises the legislative purpose but does not change the legal effect. When the clause becomes an enacted section (as in Document 1), the statutory language governs. The summary in Document 2 may aid readers in understanding legislative intent but is not a source of substantive law.
  • Because the operative statutory text is identical, there is no change in legal authority, delegation mechanics or the limits on delegated appointments between the Old Version and the enacted form as presented - both require adherence to the relevant "rules and ... orders." Any procedural changes would therefore arise from those subordinate rules/orders, which are not included in either document.
  • Where administrative action or litigation turns on legislative intent, the summary in the Bill text (Document 2) might be cited for purposive interpretation, but courts and administrators will primarily rely on the enacted text (Document 1) and the applicable service rules or orders when adjudicating disputes.

Other specifics such as effective date, transitional arrangements for incumbents, specified qualifications for appointment, criteria for delegation, or disciplinary and appeal procedures are Not stated in the document.


Full Text:

Section 237 Appointment of income-tax authorities.

Topics

Acts Income Tax