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 239 "Instructions to subordinate 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 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The two texts under review are Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as presented in Document 1) and Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Both provisions concern the power of the Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to subordinate income-tax authorities. The provisions are largely similar in scope and structure; however, there are minor textual variations between the Act version and the Bill old version that may have practical consequences for scope and administrative practice. Affected parties include the Board, subordinate income-tax authorities, appellate authorities and taxpayers. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: The provision is framed under the heading "Authorities, jurisdiction and functions" and specifically titled "Instructions to subordinate authorities." The text sets out (i) a general power for the Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities for proper administration; (ii) express limits on that power vis-`a-vis directing particular outcomes or interfering with appellate discretion; and (iii) specific ancillary powers in sub-section (3) for issuing general or special orders relating to various listed sections, admitting delayed claims in certain cases, and relaxing specified Chapter IV or VIII requirements where genuine hardship is established.

      Definitions/explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The Board may issue orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities for proper administration; such authorities and all persons employed in execution shall observe and follow them (sub-s. (1)).

      Limits: Sub-section (2) imposes two limits. The Board cannot (a) require an income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; and (b) interfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of appellate functions.

      Particular powers: Sub-section (3) contains three distinct heads:

      • (3)(a) - the Board may issue, for management of assessment and collection work, general or special orders (including by way of relaxation of specified provisions) in respect of any class of incomes or cases, setting guidelines/principles/procedures (not prejudicial to assessees) for subordinate authorities; and such orders may be published/circulated in the prescribed manner in the public interest.
      • (3)(b) - the Board may, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority (other than appellate authorities) to admit an application or claim for exemption, deduction, refund or other relief after statutory time limits and deal with it on merits to avoid genuine hardship.
      • (3)(c) - the Board may, by general or special order for reasons to be specified, relax any requirement in Chapter IV or VIII where an assessee failed to comply with a requirement for claiming deduction, provided (i) the default was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and (ii) the assessee complied with the requirement before completion of assessment for the tax year in which the deduction is claimed. Sub-section (4) requires the Central Government to lay every order issued under sub-s. (3)(c) before each House of Parliament.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The provision expresses an intent to centralise administrative guidance and to permit the Board to issue non-case-specific instructions to promote uniformity and efficiency in assessment and collection, while simultaneously protecting adjudicatory independence at the case level (notably appellate discretion) and preserving safeguards for taxpayers against prejudicial instructions. The inclusion of powers to relax procedural/technical requirements and to admit time-barred claims reflects a policy to address genuine hardship and avoid unduly rigid forfeiture of reliefs. The Act also contemplates publication of orders where the Board deems it necessary in the public interest, signalling transparency for general guidance.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The principal exceptions are recorded in sub-section (2) which precludes instructions that would compel a specific outcome in a particular case or interfere with appellate discretion. Sub-section (3)(a)(i) requires that directions/instructions be "not being prejudicial to assessees." Sub-section (3)(c) conditions relaxation on (i) circumstances beyond the assessee's control and (ii) compliance before completion of assessment in the relevant year. Sub-section (4) subjects orders under (3)(c) to parliamentary oversight by laying them before each House.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A Board order setting uniform procedural steps for assessment teams in electronic filing of responses - Not stated in the document as a concrete illustration, but consistent with (3)(a). (If a concrete example is required: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: Permitting admission of a delayed refund claim where a natural calamity prevented timely filing, subject to the Board issuing a general order under (3)(b). Not stated in the document as a case illustration.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: The text cross-refers explicitly to many specific sections (for potential relaxation) and to Chapters IV and VIII (for relaxation of requirements). It also draws a distinction between non-appellate income-tax authorities and appellate authorities (Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals)) - limiting the Board's direct intervention in appellate discretion. Specific Rules/Notifications/Circulars are not enumerated beyond "prescribed manner" for publication. Names or citations of subordinate instruments: Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Act Version and the Bill (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Wording in sub-section (2): Act - "No orders, instructions or directions under sub-section (1) shall be issued so as to-"; Bill - "No orders, instructions or directions under sub-section (1) shall be issued to-".
        • Practical impact: The difference is stylistic. "So as to" arguably emphasises the manner or effect of issuing instructions (i.e., not in such a way as to require a particular outcome), whereas "shall be issued to" reads as a direct prohibition on issuing orders to certain ends. In practice, there is no substantive change to the substantive prohibition identified in (2)(a) and (2)(b). The difference is likely immaterial to legal effect but may carry minor interpretive shading about focus on manner versus recipient/purpose.
      • List of sections in sub-section (3)(a): The Act version lists the sequence "...287, 288, 298, 398(3)..." whereas the Bill old version lists "...287, 298, 398(3)..." (i.e., 288 appears in the Act text but appears omitted in the Bill text as presented).
        • Practical impact: If the omission in the Bill was inadvertent and 288 is intended in the final Act, then the Act version broadens express authority to relax the provisions of section 288. If section 288 imposes distinct obligations or sanctions, explicit inclusion permits the Board to issue relaxations by general/special order in respect of that provision. Conversely, omission would narrow the enumerated list. Whether this difference has substantive effect depends on the content and importance of section 288 (Not stated in the document). If section 288 relates to a material procedural or substantive requirement, inclusion in the relaxation clause could materially affect taxpayers and assessing authorities by permitting central relaxation for classes of cases. The document does not state whether the listing is exhaustive or illustrative ("or otherwise" appears), which also affects the practical reach of the Board's power: the text includes "or otherwise" suggesting non-exclusivity, but the significance of explicitly listing a section is to signal legislative focus on those provisions.
      • Phraseology in sub-section (3)(b): Act - "authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified ..." Bill - "authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief ...".
        • Practical impact: The difference ("claim any" versus "claim for any") is grammatical and does not change the substantive operation: both permit admission of applications or claims for relief after expiry of the statutory period. No substantive practical effect discernible from the text.
      • Stylistic heading and citation labels: Document 1 is presented as "Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025" while Document 2 is "Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025."
        • Practical impact: This reflects legislative stage (Bill vs enacted Act) rather than substantive content differences. The operative legal effect changes on enactment; however, the document does not state dates or legislative history. Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The Board's power to issue guidelines and procedural directions (3)(a) means subordinate authorities must implement central instructions, subject to the limits in sub-s. (2). Taxpayers should be attentive to Board circulars/orders published under (3)(a)(ii) as they may set procedural expectations. Risk arises if a directive crosses the prohibition in sub-s. (2) by effectively directing particular case outcomes; the text prohibits such directions, creating a compliance boundary for the Board and subordinate officers.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where a subordinate authority admits a delayed claim under (3)(b) or relaxes Chapter IV/VIII requirements under (3)(c), the text requires reasons to be specified (for (3)(c)) and conditions to be satisfied. Authorities should record the factual circumstances showing that default was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and that compliance occurred before completion of assessment, to meet the textual conditions. The document does not specify forms or prescribed records. Not stated in the document.
      • Administrative practice: The ability to publish orders for general information (3)(a)(ii) suggests the Board will issue administrative directions periodically; such published orders will guide uniform practice. Where textual differences (e.g., inclusion of section 288) exist between Bill and Act, administrative guidance should clarify the scope of any relaxation power available to the Board. The document does not state any such clarifications. Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision vests the Board with a broad, centralised power to issue administrative orders, instructions and directions to subordinate income-tax authorities for proper administration.
      • Sub-section (2) preserves adjudicatory independence by barring orders that compel a particular assessment outcome or interfere with appellate discretion.
      • Sub-section (3) enables the Board to issue general/special orders including relaxation of specified provisions, admission of time-barred claims to avoid genuine hardship, and relaxation of Chapter IV or VIII requirements subject to conditions and parliamentary oversight for (3)(c) orders.
      • Differences between the Bill old version and the Act are minor and largely stylistic, except for a possible addition of section 288 in the Act's list - which, if deliberate, expands the express list of provisions that may be relaxed.
      • Stakeholders should expect periodic Board orders and should ensure documentary evidence of circumstances beyond control where relief under (3)(b)/(3)(c) is sought; the document does not provide procedural forms or timelines. Not stated in the document.
      • Where a conflict arises between a Board instruction and the prohibitions in sub-section (2), the textual prohibition provides a clear legal boundary; enforcement and interpretation will depend on future administrative practice and judicial review. Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax