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
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
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
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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax