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 257 "Proceedings before income-tax authorities to be judicial proceedings." 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 257 Proceedings before income-tax authorities to be judicial proceedings.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The documents are two textual versions of Clause/Section 257 concerning proceedings before income-tax authorities: (1) Section 257 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (final/enacted text as presented) and (2) Clause 257 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version. Both declare proceedings before income-tax authorities to be judicial proceedings and treat income-tax authorities as civil courts for certain statutory purposes. The primary difference is the insertion, in the enacted text, of a limiting phrase in subsection (2) - "but not for the purposes of Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." This matters for taxpayers, tax authorities and courts because it adjusts the scope of civil-court status conferred on income-tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Section/Clause 257 is located within the Income-tax Act/Bill, 2025 and references specific provisions of two recently enacted central statutes: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) - sections 229, 233 and 267 - and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) - section 215 and, in the enacted text, Chapter XXVIII. Coverage: the provision addresses the legal character of proceedings before income-tax authorities by declaring them "judicial proceedings" for certain penal/statutory purposes and by deeming income-tax authorities to be "Civil Court[s]" for a specified statutory purpose. Definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the cross-references to the cited sections/Chapter in the other statutes.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Section/Clause 257 contains two subsections. Subsection (1) declares that "any proceeding under this Act before an income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding" for the meaning of sections 229 and 267 and "for the purposes of section 233" of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023). Subsection (2) deems every income-tax authority to be a Civil Court for the purposes of section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023). The enacted text further qualifies subsection (2) by excluding Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The provision thus creates cross-statutory recognition: tax proceedings acquire the legal status of "judicial proceedings" and income-tax authorities acquire "civil court" status for certain specified statutory references.

Interpretation

The text indicates a legislative intent to align procedural and evidentiary characterisations of tax proceedings with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and to confer certain civil-court attributes under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The explicit citation of particular sections suggests a targeted application rather than a wholesale importation of all features of judicial or civil-court status. The insertion of the negative qualification regarding Chapter XXVIII indicates a deliberate limitation to avoid extending civil-court status into that Chapter. The provision does not expressly list the consequences that follow from deeming tax proceedings "judicial proceedings" or income-tax authorities "Civil Courts" beyond the cross-references.

Exceptions/Provisos

The only express proviso in the enacted version is the carve-out in subsection (2): income-tax authorities are not to be considered civil courts "for the purposes of Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." No other exceptions, thresholds, or conditions are set out in the text. If further exceptions exist in Rules or other provisions, they are Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A proceeding before an income-tax authority involving assessment or penalty will be treated as a "judicial proceeding" for the application of sections 229 and 267 and for section 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The precise consequences depend on those sections' content (Not stated in the document).
  • Example 2: An income-tax authority exercising powers referenced in section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita will be treated as a Civil Court for that limited purpose. However, any procedural entitlement or sanction located in Chapter XXVIII of that statute cannot be invoked against or by the income-tax authority under this deeming (details of Chapter XXVIII: Not stated in the document).

Interplay

The provision expressly interacts with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by adopting their terminology and conferring specified legal character on tax proceedings and authorities. The enacted text narrows the interaction with the latter Act by excluding Chapter XXVIII. Any interaction with other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

Differences between the Bill (Old Version) and the Enacted Section

Two substantive differences are visible between the texts provided:

  • Non-application carve-out: The enacted Section 257 adds a proviso that income-tax authorities are deemed to be Civil Courts for the purposes of section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, "but not for the purposes of Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." The Bill version included only the deeming to be a Civil Court without this exclusion.

  • Stylistic/enactment status: The Bill is labeled "Clause 257 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version"; the enacted text is labeled "Section 257 - Income-tax Act, 2025." This reflects passage into law rather than a substantive textual difference beyond the added exclusion. Any other drafting changes: Not stated in the document.

Practical impact of each change:

  • The added exclusion narrows the deeming effect by preventing the Civil Court characterization from extending to Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Practically, this limits the rights, remedies, or procedural effects conferred by Chapter XXVIII (whatever those may be under the 2023 statute) from attaching to income-tax authorities; conversely, it preserves those Chapter XXVIII provisions as inapplicable to tax authorities. The specific consequences depend on the subject-matter of Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (e.g., special powers, procedures, or sanctions), which the document does not explicate. Therefore the operational impact: narrower application of the Civil Court deeming. Details of Chapter XXVIII's content: Not stated in the document.

  • The change from "Clause" to "Section" signals enactment and legal force; the addition of the exclusion therefore reflects parliamentary intent to circumscribe the practical scope of Civil Court status for tax authorities. Any legislative history or reasons for insertion of the exclusion: Not stated in the document.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Tax practitioners should take cognisance that proceedings before income-tax authorities are judicial proceedings for the cited sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; this may affect admissibility of evidence, obligations to maintain records, or procedural safeguards where those sections apply. The enacted exclusion of Chapter XXVIII reduces uncertainty as to whether certain civil-court regimes apply; specific risk implications depend on the content of Chapter XXVIII (Not stated in the document).
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: The deeming as "judicial proceedings" may impose or trigger evidentiary consequences under the referenced sections (for example, penalties for false statements or obstruction under those statutes may apply), so maintaining contemporaneous, accurate records is impliedly important. The text does not prescribe specific record retention timelines or forms (Not stated in the document).

Key Takeaways

  • Both versions treat proceedings before income-tax authorities as "judicial proceedings" for specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
  • Both versions deem income-tax authorities to be "Civil Court[s]" for purposes of section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • The enacted Section adds a limitation: income-tax authorities are not to be treated as civil courts for the purposes of Chapter XXVIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - a narrowing absent from the Bill's Old Version.
  • The limiting clause reduces potential scope creep and clarifies that certain provisions in Chapter XXVIII do not attach to income-tax authorities by virtue of this deeming.
  • Details as to the substantive consequences flowing from the cited sections or from Chapter XXVIII are Not stated in the document; implications therefore depend on those external texts.

Full Text:

Section 257 Proceedings before income-tax authorities to be judicial proceedings.

Topics

Acts Income Tax