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 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