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
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax