Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax