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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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 267 "Tax on updated return." 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 267 Tax on updated return.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 267 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) concerning payment requirements and additional income-tax on an updated return under proposed section 263(6). It matters because it prescribes mandatory payment, additional tax percentages and interest computation rules where a taxpayer files an updated return late or after an earlier return; affected parties include taxpayers required to file updated returns and the tax department administering collection. Effective or operative dates are not stated in the document beyond a temporal limit for guideline issuance (two years from 1 April, 2026).

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 267 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, dealing with "Tax on updated return" and interaction with proposed section 263 (filing of returns and processing). Coverage: situations where a taxpayer has not previously furnished a return u/s 263(1) or (4) or where an earlier return u/s 263(1), (4) or (5) has been furnished but a later updated return under 263(6) results in tax being payable. The text establishes payment obligations, the set-off of certain amounts, computation of an "additional income-tax" as a percentage of tax and interest, and rules for computation of interest. Definitions: the provision defines "assessed tax" contextually and cross-references numerous provisions-sections 157, 159, 160, 166, 206 (various subclauses), 423, 424, 425 and 266. No separate definitional section is provided within Clause 267 itself (e.g., "assessed tax" is defined only within the clause).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 267 applies in two distinct factual matrices: (i) where no earlier return u/s 263(1) or (4) has been furnished and an updated return u/s 263(6) would give rise to tax payable (sub-section (1)); and (ii) where an earlier return u/s 263(1), (4) or (5) has been furnished but, after taking specified omitted amounts into account (as increased by any refund issued on the earlier return), tax becomes payable when an updated return under 263(6) is furnished (sub-section (3)). In both cases the assessee is liable to pay the tax along with interest and fee for delay/default, and must pay an "additional income-tax" as computed under sub-section (5) before furnishing the updated return; proof of payment must accompany the return.

      Interpretation

      Clause 267 demonstrates a legislative intent to deter late or corrective filings that reduce the state's revenue by imposing graduated additional tax multipliers (25%, 50%, 60%, 70% depending on delay band) on the aggregate of tax and interest. The provision emphasizes immediate payment before filing and documentation of such payment, indicating an intent to secure revenue before allowing assessment processes to proceed. The cross-references to reliefs and credits show an intent to net off amounts already allowed or claimed so that additional tax is computed on the net tax liability arising on the updated return.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains several carve-outs and conditions: certain credits or relief already claimed in an earlier return are to be taken into account (sub-section (4) lists such items) and tax already paid as advance tax, TDS/TCS, and foreign tax reliefs are to be deducted (sub-section (2)). Interest paid in an earlier return reduces the additional income-tax computation (sub-section (3)(b)). There is an administrative proviso conferring power on the Board, with Central Government approval, to issue guidelines to remove difficulty (sub-section (8)), subject to constraints including a two-year outer limit for issuing guidelines (sub-section (9)) and parliamentary laying and modification mechanism (sub-section (10)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A filed no return for FY 2024-25. On realisation of income omitted, updated return u/s 263(6) shows tax and interest of INR 100,000. If filed within 12 months from end of next FY, additional income-tax equals 25% of INR 100,000 = INR 25,000, payable with the tax and interest before filing. (Numbers illustrative; computation corresponds to sub-section (5)(a).)
      • Example 2: Taxpayer B had earlier return but omitted certain foreign income for which foreign tax credit is claimed u/s 159(1). The omitted income increases tax due. The taxpayer must pay tax, interest, and additional income-tax (reduced by interest already paid in earlier return). (Consistent with sub-sections (3)-(5) and (4)(c).)

      Interplay

      Clause 267 expressly interacts with multiple provisions: sections 157, 159(1)/(2), 160 (foreign tax relief and deductions); section 266 (relief/tax credit); Chapter XIX-B (TDS/TCS); section 206 (tax credits as per section 206(13) in the Bill); and sections 423-425 (interest computations). The clause prescribes that, for certain interest computations, the amount on which interest is computed is the "assessed tax" defined within the clause as the tax on total income declared in the updated return after taking into account specified credits and as increased by any refund on the earlier return. The Board's guideline power (with a two-year issuance window) will affect administration of these interactions.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Reference to tax credit provisions (206(1)(m)-(p), 206(2)(e)-(h) versus section 206(13)) - Document 1 (Section 267) refers specifically to tax-credit provisions in sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h) in sub-sections (2)(f), (4)(e) and (7)(a)(v). Document 2 (Clause 267, Bill) instead refers broadly to "section 206(13)" in the parallel places.
        • Practical impact: the Bill's cross-reference condenses multiple specific subclauses into a single aggregated provision number. This may broaden or narrow the set of credits covered depending on the content of section 206(13) (not stated here). The change affects which tax credits are taken into account when computing amounts to be reduced from additional tax; it therefore has direct compliance and computation implications for taxpayers claiming credits.
      • Treatment and numbering of guideline/notification power - Document 1 contains sub-section (8) empowering the Board, with previous Central Government approval, to issue guidelines to remove difficulty; sub-section (9) requires laying such guidelines before Parliament and contemplates modification/annulment by both Houses. Document 2 relocates and modifies these provisions: its sub-section (8) authorises the Board to issue guidelines "removing the difficulty" (slightly different wording), sub-section (9) imposes an outer temporal limit-"No guidelines under sub-section (8) shall be issued after the expiration of two years from the 1st April, 2026." Document 2 retains parliamentary laying and modification language in sub-section (10).
        • Practical impact: the Bill introduces a sunset for guideline-making (two-year window from 1 April 2026), limiting administrative flexibility after that period. Tax administration will have a time-bound window to issue clarificatory guidelines; post-expiry, any necessary broader administrative clarifications would likely require amendment or other measures.
      • Minor drafting and terminological differences - Document 1 uses expressions such as "amounts referred to in sub-section (2)" and "the amounts referred to in sub-section (3)" while Document 2 alternates with "The sums referred to in sub-section (3)" and retains "amounts" elsewhere.
        • Practical impact: largely drafting in style only; no substantive legal change apparent from these wording differences alone.
      • Order and numbering of subsections toward the end - Document 1 contains provisions numbered through (11), with distinct mechanics in sub-section (10) and (11). Document 2 extends numbering to (12) (with comparable content but slightly different clause-lettering at the end).
        • Practical impact: numbering differences could affect citation precision; substance of interest-computation provisions is substantially similar, though the Bill includes the sunset for guideline issuance (not present in Document 1).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers filing updated returns must ensure that payment of tax, fee, interest and the prescribed additional income-tax is made before filing; failure will breach statutory preconditions for acceptance and expose taxpayers to additional liabilities. The progressive slabs (25% to 70%) create material marginal cost for delayed updates, increasing compliance risk for late filers. Where credits u/s 206(13) are implicated, taxpayers need to reconcile entitlement carefully before filing.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers must retain proof of payment of tax, interest, fee and additional income-tax to accompany the updated return (statutory requirement). Documentation supporting claims of advance tax, TDS/TCS, foreign tax paid and creditable amounts must be maintained to substantiate sums taken into account under sub-sections (2) and (4). Any interest previously paid (on earlier return) must be documented to support reduction of additional income-tax as provided in sub-section (3)(b).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 267 mandates payment of tax, interest, fee and an additional income-tax at the time of filing an updated return u/s 263(6).
      • Various credits and prior payments (advance tax, TDS/TCS, foreign tax reliefs, and tax credits u/s 206(13)) reduce the amount payable; precise applicability depends on whether such items were claimed or omitted in earlier returns.
      • Additional income-tax is graduated by delay bands: 25% (within 12 months), 50% (12-24 months), 60% (24-36 months), 70% (36-48 months) of aggregate tax and interest.
      • Interest computation rules tie to sections 423-425 and the clause defines "assessed tax" for interest purposes; interest paid earlier reduces additional income-tax in specified cases.
      • The Board is empowered to issue guidelines to remove difficulties, but the Bill confines guideline issuance to a two-year window from 1 April 2026; all guidelines must be laid before Parliament and are subject to modification/annulment.
      • Taxpayers must accompany updated returns with proof of payment; failure to do so may affect acceptance and expose taxpayers to further compliance cost.
      • Certain details-implementation mechanisms, forms, procedural timelines beyond those stated, and the content of section 206(13)-are not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 267 Tax on updated return.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax