Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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