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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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