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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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