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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 253 "Powers of survey." 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 253 Powers of survey.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), setting out powers of survey exercisable by income-tax authorities. It matters because it defines entry, inspection, assistance, impounding and related procedural limits affecting taxpayers, assessing authorities and compliance officers. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business/profession/charitable activities, their employees and custodians of records; the issuing or effective date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, titled "Powers of survey." Coverage: authorises an income-tax authority to enter places where business/profession/charitable activity is carried on (including non-principal places and any place stated to contain books, cash, stock, valuables or computer systems). The clause addresses entry conditions, timing (business hours or after sunrise/before sunset), powers on entry (inspection, technical assistance, verification of assets/stock, recording statements on oath), impounding/retention of documents, inventory of assets, and enforcement powers (reference to section 246(1)). Definitions provided: "income-tax authority" with an enumerated list and inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax for specified sub-sections. The clause describes special entry for verifying TDS/TCS under Chapter XIX-B and permits certain restricted actions in those instances. It does not provide an effective date in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision authorises entry into premises where business/profession/charitable activities are carried on, within the assigned area or where the authority exercises jurisdiction, or where authorised by another income-tax authority. Upon entry the inspecting authority may require persons present to provide technical/other assistance (including access codes) to inspect books, documents, computer systems, electronic media or virtual digital space; to provide facilities to check or verify assets/stock; and to furnish information relevant to any proceeding under the Act. Entry timing is constrained to business hours for business places, and to after sunrise/before sunset for other places. For verification of TDS/TCS (Chapter XIX-B), the authority may enter during daylight and require access to books, documents, electronic media, computer systems and virtual digital space. Powers on entry include marking identification on documents, making extracts or copies from electronic media/computer systems, recording statements on oath, impounding and retaining documents (with reasons) for specified periods, and making inventories of assets/stock.

      Interpretation

      The Bill reflects an intent to modernise survey powers to expressly reach electronic media and virtual digital space, and to require technical assistance including access codes. The text indicates a legislative purpose to equip tax authorities to access digital records and remote storage when verifying compliance. The presence of timing restrictions and a requirement to record reasons for impounding indicates an intent to balance intrusive powers with procedural safeguards. Reference to section 246(1) for enforcement suggests use of pre-existing coercive mechanisms rather than creation of new penal sanctions within the clause.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The principal limitations are temporal (business hours or daylight), limitation on actions when entering for Chapter XIX-B verification (the authority acting under sub-section (4) shall only undertake actions referred under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b)), and requirement to record reasons before impounding. There is also an implicit limitation that removal of assets/stock from the premises is prohibited ("shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place... any asset or stock" - Not stated in the document whether this prohibition is absolute or subject to any exception beyond what's written) .

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A shop open for business is visited during business hours; the authority can require staff to provide access to on-premises accounting software and extract relevant records, mark documents, and, after recording reasons, impound ledger printouts for up to fifteen days.
      • Example 2: For a charitable trust's event, after the function the authority may require the organiser to furnish information regarding expenditure and record statements on oath for use in subsequent proceedings.
      • Example 3: In a TDS verification at a corporate office, the authority may require access to electronic media and virtual digital space to confirm deductions/collections, but may only carry out marking/copying of documents and recording of statements during that entry.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes Chapter XIX-B (TDS/TCS) and section 246(1) (for enforcement), indicating interplay with existing assessment and enforcement provisions. There is no textual reference to subordinate rules, guidelines, data-protection statutes, or procedural safeguards beyond the recording of reasons and approval requirements for impounding beyond fifteen days. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to evidence law, privacy law, or specific Board instructions governing access to virtual digital spaces.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope of electronic material: The Bill (Document 2, "Old Version") expressly includes "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space" and, in another sub-clause, "electronic media ... or virtual digital space." The Act version (Document 1, Section 253) uses narrower phrasing: "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's language is broader and expressly captures cloud/virtual data and ancillary material connected with computer systems; the Act text reduces express reach to "information in electronic form or on a computer system," which may narrow or at least create interpretive questions about whether remote/virtual storage and ancillary system material fall within survey powers.
      • Assistance required on entry: Both versions require provision of "necessary technical and other assistance (including access code)." The Bill's clause (1)(i) explicitly refers to "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space," while the Act omits the phrase "any other material connected ... including virtual digital space" and refers instead to "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's wording gives clearer authority to demand assistance for inspecting connected materials and virtual spaces; the Act may be read as focused on retrievable information rather than the broader system context.
      • Inspection powers under Chapter XIX-B verification (sub-section (4)): The Bill expressly grants access to "access to electronic media or computer system, or virtual digital space" for verifying TDS/TCS compliance. The Act restricts the language to "books of account or other documents, or information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: Enforcement relating to TDS/TCS may have broader reach under the Bill wording; the Act's phrasing may require interpretive expansion to cover virtual digital spaces.
      • Impounding and retention wording: The Bill states the authority may "impound and retain in custody any books of account or other documents inspected by it, after recording reasons for doing so, for a period-(i) of fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with prior approval." The Act states the authority may "impound after recording reasons for doing so, any books of account or other documents, or any computer system inspected by it, and retain it for a period-(i) up to fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with the prior approval."
        • Practical impact: The Act explicitly adds "any computer system" to the list that may be impounded and clarifies retention periods as "up to fifteen days" (versus Bill's "of fifteen days"), arguably the same practical effect but with different drafting emphasis on computer systems in the Act.
      • Restriction on actions under sub-section (4): Both texts state that an income-tax authority acting under sub-section (4) shall undertake only specified actions. The Act (Document 1, sub-section (6)) explicitly states those are the actions under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b). The Bill has parallel wording but formatting differs.
        • Practical impact: Substantively similar; Act wording makes explicit which actions are permissible during TDS/TCS verification entry.
      • Definition of "proceeding": The Act (Document 1, sub-section (11)(B)) contains an express definition of "proceeding" (covering pending, completed, and subsequently commenced proceedings in respect of any year). The Bill (Document 2) does not include that definition.
        • Practical impact: The Act's explicit definition broadens clarity that survey material can be used for multiple stages of assessment or later proceedings; the Bill leaves this potentially ambiguous.
      • Inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax: Both versions include Inspector of Income-tax for limited purposes, though the Act sets out the inclusion within sub-clause labelling (11)(A)/(B) and specifies subordinate relationship "as specified by the Board."
        • Practical impact: Largely administrative/drafting differences; both permit limited use of Inspectors for designated actions.
      • Other drafting and structural differences: Minor differences in clause sequencing and phrasing (e.g., use of "exclusive of holidays," "up to" vs "of"), and the Act's explicit prohibition on removal of assets (sub-section (7)) mirrors the Bill but with slightly different placement.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive/drafting; the Act is marginally more detailed in certain definitions (notably "proceeding") and in expressly including computer systems for impoundment, while the Bill more explicitly referenced virtual digital space and electronic media.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should be prepared to provide technical assistance and access codes on survey entry; failure or evasion exposes them to enforcement u/s 246(1). The express reach to electronic media and virtual digital space increases exposure of cloud-stored records during surveys.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should maintain accessible copies of records, documented chain of custody for electronic records, and contemporaneous explanations of transactions likely to be scrutinised. Given the power to mark and copy, maintaining integrity and availability of archives and backups is important. Not stated in the document: retention periods or specific standards for electronic evidence preservation beyond usual record-keeping obligations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 253 authorises robust survey powers, including entry, technical access (including access codes), marking, copying and impounding of records.
      • The Bill explicitly targets electronic media and virtual digital space, reflecting attention to digital records; it also permits access for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Temporal limits apply: business-hours or daylight entries and distinct restrictions when entry is for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Impounding requires reasons to be recorded; retention beyond fifteen days needs prior approval.
      • Non-compliance with survey requisitions triggers enforcement powers u/s 246(1).
      • The Bill lists authorised officers and permits Inspectors of Income-tax to act for limited purposes; however, some procedural and privacy safeguards are not detailed in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 253 Powers of survey.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax