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 266 "Self-assessment." 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 266 Self-assessment.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document is Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) titled "Self-assessment." It prescribes the liabilities and procedural requirements for payment of tax, interest and fee when a return of income (u/ss 263, 268, 280 or 294) shows tax payable. The provision affects assessees required to file such returns and the revenue where collection and adjustment of credits arise. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), captioned "Self-assessment." Context: deals with payment obligations that arise when a return of income shows tax payable after accounting for various payments, deductions and credits. Coverage extends to returns required u/ss 263, 268, 280 or 294. Definitions: the clause supplies a definition for "assessed tax" in sub-section (6) by reference to the tax as declared in the return reduced by certain amounts. No other definitions or explanatory notes are provided in the text. Relevant cross-references within the clause include sections 157, 159(1), 159(2), 160, 206 and 391(2); Chapter XIX-B is referenced for source deduction/collection. Further legislative context or objectives: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 266 imposes pre-filing payment obligations where, after accounting for amounts listed in sub-section (2), any tax is payable on the basis of a return required u/ss 263, 268, 280 or 294. Two primary obligations follow:
        • (a) the assessee must pay the tax payable together with applicable interest and fee under any provision of the Act for delays in filing or defaults in advance tax payment before filing the return; and
        • (b) the return must be accompanied by proof of payment of the tax, interest and fee.
      • Sub-section (2) enumerates the amounts to be taken into account in arriving at tax payable:
        • (a) any tax already paid under the Act;
        • (b) taxes deducted or collected at source;
        • (c) relief claimed u/s 157;
        • (d) relief or deduction u/s 159(1) or section 160 for tax paid in a foreign country;
        • (e) relief u/s 159(2) for tax paid in any specified territory outside India;
        • (f) any tax credit claimed to be set off as per section 206(13); and
        • (g) any tax or interest payable according to section 391(2).
      • Sub-section (3) prescribes the order of adjustment where the amount paid under sub-section (1) is insufficient: first applied to the fee payable, thereafter to interest, and the balance, if any, towards tax.
      • Sub-section (4) says interest u/s 423 shall be computed on tax on total income declared in the return reduced by listed items:
        • (a) advance tax paid;
        • (b) tax deducted/collected at source;
        • (c) relief u/s 157;
        • (d) relief u/s 159(1) or 160 for tax paid abroad;
        • (e) relief u/s 159(2); and
        • (f) any tax credit claimed to be set off as per section 206(13).
      • Sub-section (5) provides that interest u/s 424 shall be computed on an amount equal to the "assessed tax" or the shortfall in advance tax against assessed tax.
      • Sub-section (6) defines "assessed tax" for purposes of sub-section (5) as tax on total income declared in return reduced by:
        • (a) tax deducted/collected at source under Chapter XIX-B on income taken into account;
        • (b) relief u/s 157;
        • (c) relief u/s 159(1) or 160 for tax paid abroad;
        • (d) relief u/s 159(2) for specified territories; and
        • (e) any tax credit claimed to be set off as per section 206(13).
      • Sub-sections (7)-(9) address post-assessment treatment and consequences: payments made under sub-section (1) shall be deemed paid towards a subsequent regular assessment u/ss 270 or 271 or an assessment u/s 294 (sub-section (7)); failure to pay in full renders the assessee an "assessee in default" with all consequences under the Act (sub-section (8)); and sub-section (8) applies without prejudice to any other consequences (sub-section (9)).

      Interpretation

      The clause embodies a self-assessment model that conditions filing on payment of tax, interest and fees reflected in the return after accounting for specified credits and reliefs. The legislative intent, as indicated by the text, appears to be to prevent returns being filed without contemporaneous payment and to ensure that computation of interest (sections 423 and 424) is based on a post-credit tax amount. The text indicates a hierarchical approach to adjusting short payments (fee first, then interest, then tax), signalling a policy choice to prioritise recovery of fee and interest. The clause also integrates international tax relief provisions (sections 159/160) and source taxation mechanisms (Chapter XIX-B) into the self-assessment computation. No explicit legislative statement of purpose or policy rationale is included in the clause.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No additional provisos or carve-outs are stated in the clause. Specific thresholds, exemptions or procedural exceptions are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer files a return u/s 268 showing taxable income and computed tax of INR X after accounting for TDS and reliefs listed in sub-section (2). If additional tax payable is Y, the taxpayer must pay Y together with any interest and fee before filing and attach proof of payment. If payment made is short by Z, it will be first applied to fee, then interest, then tax.
      • Example 2: For interest computation u/s 423, if the declared tax on total income is A and the taxpayer has advance tax B and a tax credit claimed u/s 206(13) of C, interest will be computed on A reduced by (B + C) and other listed reliefs as applicable.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with a range of provisions: sections 157, 159, 160, 206 (specifically section 206(13) in this text), sections 263, 268, 270, 271, 280, 291(?), 294, 391(2), and Chapters XIX-B. The text anticipates adjustments to tax liability for foreign tax reliefs and tax credits claimed u/s 206(13). There is no mention of Rules, Notifications or Circulars that further clarify implementation. Any potential conflicts or interpretive issues with other provisions of the Bill/Act are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provided provisions and practical impact

      Comparison basis: Document 1 (Section 266, Income-tax Act, 2025) versus Document 2 (Clause 266 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)).

      • Tax credit cross-references: Document 2 repeatedly refers to "section 206(13)" as the provision governing tax credits to be set off (sub-sections (2)(f), (4)(f), (6)(e)). Document 1, by contrast, specifies a range of provisions: "sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)" in the corresponding places.
        • Practical impact: the Act version (Document 1) expressly broadens and specifies the categories of tax credit provisions available for set-off; the Bill old version (Document 2) uses a single internal reference (206(13)) which, depending on the content of section 206(13), could be narrower or less precise. Where the Act text enumerates multiple sub-clauses of section 206, it reduces ambiguity about which tax credits may be applied; the Bill text may create uncertainty if section 206(13) does not encompass all intended credits. This difference has practical consequences for taxpayers asserting particular tax credits when computing payable tax and interest.
      • Drafting/typographical variances: Document 2 contains minor drafting artifacts (e.g., an extra comma and a trailing "and." in sub-section (6) list).
        • Practical impact: such drafting defects could give rise to interpretive queries or require clarificatory amendments; however, substantive effect depends on the larger legislative context. The enacted text in Document 1 appears to have corrected and expanded the cross-references.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Assessees required to furnish returns under the listed sections must ensure contemporaneous payment of any tax, interest and fee shown as payable after accounting for specified credits and reliefs. Failure to attach proof of payment will contravene the filing requirement and may trigger "assessee in default" consequences. The ordering of application of short payments (fee -> interest -> tax) creates a compliance risk where taxpayers intending to reduce principal tax liability may find payments applied primarily to fees and interest.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The provision mandating that returns be accompanied by proof of payment requires taxpayers to retain and present verifiable payment evidence. Records evidencing claimed reliefs (sections 157, 159, 160) and tax credit documentation u/s 206(13) should be maintained to support the reductions used for interest computation and assessed tax determination.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 266 conditions filing of specified returns on pre-payment of tax, interest and fee as shown in the return after accounting for listed credits and reliefs.
      • Detailed list of items to be deducted from declared tax includes advance tax, TDS/TCS, specified foreign tax reliefs and tax credit u/s 206(13).
      • Short payments are adjusted in a prescribed order: fee first, then interest, then tax.
      • Interest u/s 423 is computed on tax reduced by specific credits and reliefs; interest u/s 424 is computed on "assessed tax" or the shortfall in advance tax.
      • Payments made prior to assessment will be treated as payments towards a later regular assessment; non-payment renders the assessee an assessee in default with statutory consequences.
      • Document lacks effective date, legislative history, administrative guidance and specifics on procedural implementation-those are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 266 Self-assessment.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax