Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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