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 259 "Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority." 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 259 Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document compares Section 259 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as enacted) with Clause 259 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both texts address the power of a prescribed income-tax authority to call for information for verification purposes. The enacted Section 259 adds an express definitional link for the term "proceeding." Affected parties include taxpayers and other persons from whom the prescribed authority may require information, and the tax department in its investigatory and verification functions. Effective dates are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: the texts are presented as Clause/Section 259 within instrument(s) captioned Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and Income-tax Act, 2025 respectively. Both entries concern powers of "prescribed income-tax authority" to call for information and reference a "scheme notified u/s 260." Definitions or further explanations contained in the texts are limited: the enacted Section 259(3) provides that "proceeding" has the meaning assigned in section 253; other definitional material is Not stated in the document. The scope in both texts is focused on verification of information "in the possession of the prescribed income-tax authority" and furnishing of information "as may be useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act."

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both the Bill (old version) and the enacted Section provide three core elements (two in the Bill text):

      • Power to issue notice: The prescribed income-tax authority may issue a notice to any person requiring the furnishing of information.
      • Purpose limited to verification: The notice power is framed "for the purposes of verification of information" in the authority's possession and is limited to information "useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act."
      • Form, manner and time: The information may be required "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice."
      • Processing under scheme: Both texts permit the prescribed authority to "process and utilise such information and document received by him as per the scheme notified u/s 260."
      • Definition of "proceeding": The enacted Section 259 contains subsection (3) stating that "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned in section 253. The Bill (old version) does not include this explicit definitional link.

      Interpretation

      The language confines the notice power to verification functions and to information already "in the possession of the prescribed income-tax authority." The words "as may be useful for, or relevant to" indicate a relevance standard rather than an absolute or unlimited information demand. The specification that compliance is in "such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice" allows the authority procedural flexibility. Provision for processing and utilisation "as per the scheme notified u/s 260" indicates that statutory or delegated scheme rules will govern handling, storage, processing and downstream use; the text itself does not describe the scheme. The enacted insertion of an explicit definitional cross-reference (Section 259(3)) signals legislative intent to anchor the scope of "proceeding" to the definition set out in section 253, thereby reducing interpretive uncertainty about the ambit of proceedings for which information can be called.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express exceptions, provisos or thresholds (for example, limits based on amount, time period, confidentiality safeguards or judicial oversight) are contained in either version of the provision. Any carve-outs, protections or procedural safeguards are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A prescribed income-tax authority holds tax return data and issues a notice u/s 259 requiring a third party to furnish corroborative invoices "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified." This is consistent with the text. Further procedural details about format, electronic submission, or penalties for non-compliance are Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: A notice seeks bank account statements from a taxpayer for verification of entries in the authority's possession. The authority may process and utilise the information under the scheme notified u/s 260. The contents of that scheme are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly refers to section 260 (scheme for processing/utilisation) and-only in the enacted version-section 253 (meaning of "proceeding"). Any further interaction with other statutory provisions, rules, notifications, or judicial precedents is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

      Identified difference:

      • Addition of subsection (3) in the enacted Section 259: The enacted text contains a new subsection (3) stating that "For the purposes of this section, the term "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 253." The Clause 259 (old Bill version) does not include this clause.

      Practical impact of the change:

      • Clarifies scope of "proceeding": By expressly tying "proceeding" to the definition in section 253, the enacted provision reduces ambiguity about which proceedings justify the use of Section 259 notices. This narrows interpretive variance that might have arisen if courts or practitioners sought to define "proceeding" from context or broader administrative notions. The precise content of section 253 is Not stated in the document, so the practical breadth of the narrowing or clarification cannot be further specified here.
      • Predictability and defensibility of notices: The definitional cross-reference allows recipients of notices to assess whether the information requested legitimately relates to a "proceeding" as defined in section 253, which may facilitate more focused challenges or compliance assessments. The Bill's omission would have left room for broader administrative interpretation of "proceeding."
      • Potentially limits overreach: If section 253 defines "proceeding" more narrowly than general administrative enquiries, the insertion may limit the range of inquiries for which notices can be issued u/s 259. Conversely, if section 253 is broad, the insertion merely cements that breadth. The document does not state which is the case.
      • Procedural coherence with related sections: The cross-reference fosters statutory coherence between investigative powers (Section 259) and the definitional framework elsewhere in the Act, aligning interpretation across provisions such as section 260 (scheme) and other investigatory or adjudicatory provisions that rely on the term "proceeding." The specific interactions beyond the textual cross-reference are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Persons receiving notices should verify that the notice relates to an inquiry or "proceeding" as defined in section 253 before furnishing information, since the enacted text makes that definitional link explicit. The document does not provide the definition in section 253, so recipients must consult that provision (Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision contemplates furnishing information "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice," and permits processing under a scheme in section 260. Entities should therefore maintain records in accessible formats and preserve documentary evidence that may be required. Details on required formats, retention periods or specific compliance modalities are Not stated in the document.
      • Administrative use and safeguards: The authority's ability to "process and utilise" information under a notified scheme indicates that procedural and data-handling rules will be set out elsewhere (section 260). The content of that scheme, including privacy safeguards, access controls or permitted uses, is Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both the Bill (old version) and the enacted Section 259 grant prescribed income-tax authorities the power to issue notices requiring persons to furnish information relevant to verification for enquiries or proceedings under the Act.
      • Both versions permit specification of form, manner and time for compliance and permit processing/utilisation of received information under a scheme notified u/s 260.
      • The primary textual change in the enacted law is the addition of subsection (3), expressly defining "proceeding" by reference to section 253.
      • The addition improves statutory clarity by anchoring the scope of notices to the definition in section 253; the substantive effect depends on the content of section 253 (Not stated in the document).
      • No procedural safeguards, exceptions, timelines, penalties for non-compliance or details of the section 260 scheme are provided in the texts reviewed; these matters are Not stated in the document.
      • Stakeholders should consult section 253 and section 260 to determine the operative meaning of "proceeding" and the processing/utilisation rules; those sections are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 259 Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax