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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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