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
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 270 "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 270 Assessment

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document is Clause 270 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) setting out the procedure for processing returns and making assessments. It matters because it prescribes grounds for automated adjustments, timelines for intimation/notice and limited inquiry powers for the Assessing Officer; these affect taxpayers, assessing authorities and administrative processes. Effective dates or enactment details: Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Clause 270 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Procedure for assessment). The clause governs processing of returns made u/s 263 or in response to a notice u/s 268(1), providing: (i) specified grounds on which the total income or loss may be adjusted at the return-processing stage, (ii) computation and adjustment of tax/interest/fee and refund, (iii) communication/intimation requirements, (iv) limited enquiry powers via notices, and (v) special sequencing when dealing with certain exempt/non-profit entities (cross-references to section 11, section 45(3)(a), Schedule III, section 351). Definitions: The clause defines "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" (sub-section (5)(a)(i)-(iii)). Other terms used: "acknowledgement of the return" is specified to be deemed intimation in certain cases (sub-section (5)(b)).

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Coverage: Clause 270 applies where return is filed u/s 263 or in response to u/s 268(1) notice. It authorises processing that may include adjustments for (i) arithmetical errors, (ii) incorrect claims apparent from the return, (iii) disallowance of loss where the return for the year to be set off was furnished beyond the due date u/s 263(1), (iv) disallowance or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account, and (v) disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 144 or Chapter VIII if return was filed beyond the due date. It requires computation of tax/interest/fee on adjusted income, adjusts payments (TDS/TCS/advance tax/rebate/self-assessment/other payments) to determine sum payable or refundable, prepares/generates and sends intimation and grants refunds accordingly.

Interpretation

Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated: The clause intends to authorise summary processing of returns to correct manifest errors or inconsistencies without invoking full assessment proceedings, subject to communication and limited opportunity to respond. The inclusion of "apparent from any information in the return" as a ground suggests a narrow, objective standard for some adjustments (entries or missing supporting information). The requirement to consider any response within thirty days indicates an intent to afford procedural fairness at the processing stage. The three-month limit for notices and nine-month limit for intimation indicate legislative emphasis on expedition and finality at the return-processing stage.

Exceptions/Provisos

Carve-outs and conditions: Before adjustments under sub-section (1)(a), the clause requires that the assessee be intimated of such adjustments in writing or electronically and be allowed to respond; if no response within thirty days, adjustments may be made. Sub-section (4) bars sending an intimation after nine months from the end of the financial year in which the return is made. Sub-section (9) bars serving the notice under sub-section (8) after three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Special sequencing applies for entities covered by sub-section (11) (research associations, associations/institutions in Schedule III) - no order under sub-section (10) shall be made without giving effect to section 11 unless the Assessing Officer has intimated Central Government/prescribed authority and approval has been withdrawn/rescinded. For registered non-profit organisations, the Assessing Officer must send a reference to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner before making assessment and cannot make an assessment without giving effect to the order passed u/s 351(2)(ii)(A) or (B).

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A return discloses an arithmetic miscalculation in taxable income; the Assessing Officer issues an intimation explaining the arithmetical correction, allows the assessee thirty days to respond, and if no reply is received, adjusts income and computes tax and refund as per sub-section (1). (Consistent with the text.)
  • Example 2: A taxpayer claims a deduction in excess of statutory percentage without furnishing prescribed supporting information in the return; under sub-section (5)(a)(ii)-(iii) this may be treated as an "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" and adjusted at processing stage after intimation. (Consistent with the text.)

Interplay

Interaction with other provisions mentioned: The clause refers to sections 263, 268(1), 263(1), 144, Chapter VIII, Chapter IX (rebates/relief), section 11 (charitable trusts/approved entities), Schedule III (Table Sl. No. 23-25), section 351 (registered non-profit violations), section 45(3)(a) (entities such as universities/colleges). The text mandates procedural sequencing so that approvals/notifications relevant to exempt entities are handled (intimation to Central Government/prescribed authority, withdrawal/rescission) prior to making assessment. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are referenced in the provision itself.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

  • Terminology and placement of certain phrases: The Act version (Document 1) consistently uses phrasing such as "an intimation shall be sent" and "the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation" while the Bill version (Document 2) uses "an intimation is to be given" or "an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent."
    • Practical impact: Largely drafting/administrative - the Act text in Document 1 is marginally more prescriptive about issuance of intimation and the mechanism for acknowledgement; no substantive legal effect discernible from the text alone.
  • Additional adjustment ground in the Act: Document 1 (Section 270) includes clause (1)(a)(iii) addressing "any such inconsistency in the return, with respect to the information in the return of any preceding tax year, as may be prescribed." This clause is not present in the Bill text (Document 2).
    • Practical impact: The Act explicitly permits prescribed cross-year consistency checks as a basis for adjustment when processing returns, expanding the grounds for automatic adjustment compared to the Bill. This increases the potential scope for adjustments without separate assessment proceedings where cross-year inconsistency is apparent and prescribed.
  • Processing consequence after intimation/assessment: Document 2 uses "shall be prepared or generated and sent" for intimation under clause (1)(d); Document 1 says "an intimation shall be sent."
    • Practical impact: Minor; Document 2 may be read as acknowledging automated/intangible generation mechanisms; Document 1 is marginally more streamlined.
  • Additional safeguards for non-profit entities/universities: Document 1 contains further detailed provisions (sub-sections (11)-(15)) with cross-references to sections 11, 45(3)(a), 351(1) etc., that are substantially similar to Document 2 but Document 1 includes explicit provisos about procedure (e.g., corrigenda note referencing "previous" corrected).
    • Practical impact: Substantive protections and procedural sequencing appear materially similar in both; Document 1 adds small clarifications but no new substantive bar beyond those in Document 2.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure correctness and sufficient supporting information in the return because "incorrect claims apparent from any information in the return" can be disallowed at processing stage. Late filing of a return for a year from which losses are to be set off may lead to disallowance of that loss at processing stage. Entities getting audit reports should ensure audit-report indicated adjustments are reflected in the return to avoid disallowance at processing.
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: Since adjustments may be made on the basis of entries apparent on the return, taxpayers should maintain contemporaneous records and ensure details and prescribed supporting particulars are filed with returns. Retention of documents supporting deductions and percentages is critical because failure to furnish the information in the return itself can trigger adjustment without a full assessment.

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 270 authorises summary processing of returns to correct arithmetical errors and certain "apparent" incorrect claims without full assessment proceedings.
  • Taxpayers get a thirty-day opportunity to respond to proposed processing adjustments; absence of reply allows adjustments to proceed.
  • There are strict timelines for administrative action: notices under sub-section (8) must be issued within three months of year-end; intimations must be sent within nine months.
  • Special procedural sequencing protects certain exempt/non-profit entities: Assessing Officer must inform Central Government/prescribed authority and allow withdrawal/rescission processes before assessment under sub-section (10).
  • "Incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" is defined narrowly by reference to inconsistency, absence of required information, or exceeding specified statutory limits.
  • Processing stage adjustments can lead to immediate demand or refund determination; amounts paid at processing may be applied against subsequent regular assessments.
  • Taxpayers should ensure accuracy and completeness of the return, timely filing, and attachment of prescribed information to reduce risk of summary disallowances.

Full Text:

Section 270 Assessment

Topics

Acts Income Tax