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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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 248 "Powers to requisition." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      9 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 248 Powers to requisition.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause/Section 248 deals with powers to requisition assets, books of account, documents or electronic systems that are held in custody by other authorities. It identifies circumstances in which an approving authority may authorise a requisitioning officer to require delivery of such material. The provision affects taxpayers, other enforcement authorities and the income-tax department. Effective date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 248 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) (referred herein as "this Act" where applicable) and cross-references section 247, section 268 and section 489(2) within the same bill. The provision addresses situations where books, documents, electronic media or computer systems - or assets - that may be relevant to proceedings under "this Act" are in the custody of officers or authorities under other laws. It establishes a power for the approving authority to authorise certain tax officers (Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director, Assistant Commissioner or Income-tax Officer) to requisition delivery of those items. The text defines the authorised requisitioning officers by reference to section 489(2).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 248(1) specifies three factual predicates that may give an approving authority reason to believe requisitioning is justified:

      • Clause (a): A person to whom a summons u/s 246(1) or a notice u/s 268(1) was issued to produce books/documents/electronic media/computer systems has omitted or failed to produce them, and those items have been taken into custody by an officer/authority under another law.
      • Clause (b): Books/documents/electronic media/computer systems will be useful or relevant to any proceeding under this Act and persons subject to summons/notice will not or would not produce the material upon its return by an officer/authority that has taken them into custody under another law.
      • Clause (c): Assets taken into custody under another law represent wholly or partly income or property not disclosed for the purposes of this Act by the person from whose possession/control those assets were taken.

      On any of these predicates, the approving authority may authorise the listed tax officers (requisitioning officer) to require the custodian officer/authority to deliver the assets/books/documents/electronic media/computer system to the requisitioning officer.

      Interpretation

      The provision is framed as a power to secure materials in the hands of non-tax authorities where such materials are necessary for tax proceedings. The language signals a legislative intent to enable the tax administration to access evidence or assets that might otherwise be inaccessible due to custody by other state agencies or statutory bodies. The repeated use of "reason to believe" suggests a subjective standard based on information in the approving authority's possession, but the text does not elaborate on the nature or quantum of information required. The provision contemplates cooperation with other authorities by obliging them to deliver material "forthwith" or when they deem it no longer necessary to retain it.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: The text contains no express provisos limiting the power (for example, to preserve ongoing criminal investigations, to require prior consultation, or to impose timelines for return beyond the phrase "forthwith or when ... no longer necessary"). There is no stated priority between the tax authority's requisition and the custodian authority's own statutory duties, nor any mechanism for judicial oversight or appeal within the clause.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A central investigative agency has seized a company's servers during a probe. The income-tax department has issued summons u/s 246(1) for the same servers, but the company failed to produce them. Under clause 248(1)(a), the approving authority may authorise a requisitioning officer to require the investigative agency to hand over the servers. (Fact pattern consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: A public sector entity holds physical assets seized under a customs or excise law. The tax department has reason to believe the assets represent undisclosed taxable income. Clause 248(1)(c) permits requisitioning of those assets. (Fact pattern consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes sections 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 (and, in the later Act, section 247(4)(b)) to apply "as far as may be" after delivery; thus procedural consequences for seizure, custody, preservation, and return are to be followed. The provision also cross-refers to section 489(2) for the definition of "requisitioning officer". There is no discussion within the clause of interaction with the statutory mandates of the custodian authorities or with judicial process in matters such as warrants, trial confidentiality or state security. Any further interplay with rules, notifications, or circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Terminology for electronic evidence: Document 1 (Section 248, Income-tax Act, 2025) uses the phrase "any information in electronic form or on a computer system". Document 2 (Clause 248, Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) uses "any information stored in an electronic media or a computer systems" (with minor grammatical plurality differences).
        • Practical impact: The updated wording in Document 1 ("in electronic form or on a computer system") is broader and more modern in expression; it may reduce ambiguity about the medium (not restricted to "media") and better encompass cloud-based or ephemeral electronic forms. The change is primarily terminological and clarificatory.
      • References to other statutory provisions: Document 1 expressly cross-references summons u/s 131(1) or notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in clause (a), in addition to summons u/s 246(1) or notice u/s 268(1) of "this Act". Document 2 refers only to summons u/s 246(1) or notice u/s 268(1) (i.e., within the Bill) in clause (a).
        • Practical impact: The inclusion in Document 1 of the established Income-tax Act, 1961 provisions (sections 131(1) and 142(1)) extends express reach to documents summoned under the older statute and clarifies interplay between the two enactments. This reduces potential lacunae where documents taken under the 1961 Act might otherwise be outside requisition scope.
      • Application of other sections upon delivery: Document 1 provides that, once delivered, the provisions of sections 247(4)(b), 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 apply with substitution of "the requisitioning officer" for "the authorised officer". Document 2 applies sections 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 only (it omits explicit application of section 247(4)(b)).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of section 247(4)(b) in Document 1 potentially brings additional procedural safeguards or modalities (as contained in that specific sub-provision) into play when material is requisitioned. Omitting it in the older Bill could have resulted in a narrower procedural framework; the updated provision appears to broaden the set of operative rules after delivery.
      • Phrasing and punctuation differences: Minor grammatical and syntactical differences (e.g., "herein and in section 489(2) referred to as the requisitioning officer" in Document 1 versus "hereinafter in this section and in section 489(2) referred to as the requisitioning officer" in Document 2).
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting polish; no substantive legal effect discernible from the text alone.
      • Scope words referring to custody under other laws: Both texts refer to "taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force" (Document 1) and "under any other law in force" (Document 2).
        • Practical impact: Same substantive reach; Document 1's phrase is marginally more standardised. No material change in effect.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The provision creates a pathway for the tax administration to obtain evidence and assets held by other agencies. Stakeholders facing summons u/ss 246(1) or 268(1) should be aware that failure to produce material may lead to requisition from custody elsewhere. Custodian authorities must consider the requisition power when balancing retention for their own prosecutions or investigations.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the provision's focus on electronic media and computer systems, preservation of chain-of-custody records, forensic imaging, and logs of access and transfer will be critical once material is requisitioned. The text suggests that post-delivery, procedural sections apply as if the material had been seized u/s 247, implying evidentiary and custody procedures must be observed.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 248 empowers the approving authority to authorise requisitioning officers to obtain assets or materials held by other authorities where such material is relevant or persons fail to comply with tax summons/notices.
      • The clause covers books, documents, electronic media and computer systems, and assets that may represent undisclosed income or property.
      • Upon delivery, specified procedural sections (247(7)-(11), 250, 251, and in updated text 247(4)(b)) apply as if the material were seized u/s 247, with "requisitioning officer" substituted for "authorised officer".
      • The Bill (old version) omitted an explicit cross-reference to summons/notices u/ss 131(1) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the later Act rectifies that omission, clarifying reach to materials gathered under the 1961 Act.
      • The provision contains no express safeguards regarding conflicts with other agencies' investigations, timelines for return beyond "forthwith" or "no longer necessary", or any judicial review mechanism within the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 248 Powers to requisition.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax