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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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 274 "Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases." 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 274 Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 274 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version sets out a procedure for an Assessing Officer (AO) to refer matters involving potential "impermissible avoidance arrangements" to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and, ultimately, to an Approving Panel for declaration and determination of consequences under Chapter XI. It matters because it creates a multi-tiered, internal administrative route for invoking anti-avoidance provisions, affecting taxpayers under assessment or reassessment and income-tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 274 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and cross-reference to Chapter XI and section 159 (international assistance). The clause governs references by the AO to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and onward to an Approving Panel for declaration of an arrangement as an "impermissible avoidance arrangement" and determination of its tax consequences. Definitions of "impermissible avoidance arrangement", "Approving Panel", and detailed terms of Chapter XI are Not stated in the document. The provision covers assessment and reassessment proceedings and contemplates directions binding on the assessee and revenue authorities.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 274 permits an AO to make a reference at any stage of assessment/reassessment when, on the basis of available material and evidence, he considers it necessary to (a) declare an arrangement an impermissible avoidance arrangement and (b) determine the consequences under Chapter XI. On receiving a reference, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, if of the view that Chapter XI is to be invoked, must issue a reasons-based notice to the assessee and provide an opportunity to be heard within a period not exceeding sixty days. If the assessee fails to object within the specified time, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may issue directions to declare the arrangement impermissible. If the assessee objects and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner remains unsatisfied after hearing, a reference must be made to the Approving Panel. If satisfied that Chapter XI need not be invoked, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner must record that in writing and communicate to the AO (with copy to the assessee).

      The Approving Panel on reference may issue directions as it deems fit for declaration under Chapter XI and specify tax year(s) to which declaration applies. No such direction is to be issued without hearing the assessee and AO where the directions are prejudicial to either interest of the assessee or revenue. The Approving Panel has investigatory powers: it may order further inquiries (including via authorities under agreements referred in section 159), call for records, and require documents from the assessee. Panel decisions are by majority. Directions of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or Approving Panel are binding on the assessee and the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and subordinate income-tax authorities. No appeal lies against Approving Panel directions. The Central Government shall constitute one or more Approving Panels (three members including a Chairperson who is or has been a High Court judge; one member an IRS officer at specified rank; one member an academic/scholar with specified knowledge). Terms, meetings, remuneration and supporting officials are provided for; certain powers of the Board for Advance Rulings u/s 387 apply mutatis mutandis to the Approving Panel, and the Board shall provide officials. The Board may make rules for constitution and functioning of the Panel and disposal of references.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The provision aims to institutionalise an internal approval mechanism before invoking Chapter XI anti-avoidance provisions in an assessment/reassessment, ensuring higher-level review (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and an independent Approving Panel) and procedural safeguards such as notice and hearing. The text emphasises procedural steps (reference, notice with reasons, hearing, and opportunity to make objections), multi-layer scrutiny, and finality by making Approving Panel directions binding and non-appealable. The use of terms such as "as he deems fit" and "issue such directions" indicates discretionary powers vested in the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and the Panel. The provision also integrates international cooperation (section 159) into inquiries when necessary. Legislative intent beyond these procedural objectives is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs/conditions present in the text include:

      • Opportunity to be heard: No direction under sub-section (6) shall be issued unless opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the AO where directions are prejudicial to interests (sub-section (7)).
      • Time-limits for Panel: Approving Panel to issue directions within six months from end of month in which reference received, subject to specified exclusions (sub-sections (13)-(15)).
      • Exclusions to time computation: periods where Panel directs inquiries under agreements referred in section 159 (limited to one year or duration of information retrieval) and periods of judicial stay (sub-section (14)).
      • Binding effect and finality: Directions of the Panel are binding and not appealable (sub-sections (16) and (17)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An AO detects a complex arrangement in a taxpayer's return that appears to shift profits to a low-tax jurisdiction. The AO, considering available documents, refers the matter to the Principal Commissioner under sub-section (1) to seek declaration as an impermissible avoidance arrangement and determination under Chapter XI. (Consistent with text.)
      • Example 2: The Principal Commissioner issues a reasoned notice and the assessee objects within 30 days, but the explanation is unsatisfactory; the Principal Commissioner refers to the Approving Panel under sub-section (4). The Panel may direct further inquiries u/s 159 and thereafter issue binding directions applicable to multiple tax years as specified. (Consistent with text.)
      • Example 3: The Approving Panel, after hearing both parties, specifies that the declaration applies to the tax year under assessment and two prior years; AO must apply these directions while completing assessments for those years without seeking fresh directions (consistent with sub-section (11)).

      Interplay

      Interactions with other provisions mentioned: explicit reference to Chapter XI for substantive anti-avoidance consequences and to section 159 for obtaining information through competent authorities under international agreements. The Approving Panel may exercise certain powers of the Board for Advance Rulings u/s 387 mutatis mutandis. Specific rules, forms or subordinate instruments that may be made under this clause are Not stated in the document beyond a general power for the Board to make rules for constitution and functioning of the Panel.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers subject to assessment/reassessment face a structured process that could result in binding, non-appealable determinations that may span multiple tax years. There is a heightened procedural risk where an AO refers matters upwards; once the Approving Panel issues directions, those are binding and not subject to appeal under the Act. The text makes clear that invoking Chapter XI requires higher-level concurrence, concentrating decision-making at senior and quasi-judicial levels.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision contemplates inquiries, requests for documents, and international information exchange u/s 159; taxpayers should therefore maintain contemporaneous records and be prepared to respond to reasoned notices from the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and to directions from the Approving Panel. The text itself requires the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to set out reasons and basis in notices, indicating the centrality of documentary evidence and reasoned explanations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 274 creates a hierarchical review and approval mechanism for invoking Chapter XI anti-avoidance powers through references from AO to Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and to an Approving Panel.
      • Procedural safeguards include a reasons-based notice to the assessee, opportunity to be heard (within 60 days), and a requirement to refer to the Approving Panel when explanations are unsatisfactory.
      • The Approving Panel has investigatory powers, can specify tax years of applicability, and its directions are binding and not appealable under the Act.
      • Time-limits for Panel decisions are prescribed (six months with specified exclusions), but the text allows extensions through exclusions and a minimum remaining period of sixty days.
      • Composition of the Approving Panel combines judicial, senior revenue, and academic expertise; the Board will provide support and may make rules for functioning.
      • The clause integrates international cooperation (section 159) and confers certain powers analogous to the Board for Advance Rulings (section 387) on the Approving Panel.
      • Effective date, definitions of key terms (e.g., "impermissible avoidance arrangement"), and appeal or judicial review pathways beyond the Act's internal bar are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Document 1 (Section 274 of Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 274 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and Practical Impact

      Provision/ClauseDifference in TextPractical Impact

      Terminology in notices (sub-section (3))

      Doc1 uses the phrase "within the time specified in such notice issued under sub-section (2)"; Doc2 says "within the time specified in the notice issued under sub-section (2)".

      Purely stylistic; no substantive change in meaning or effect.

      Reference to other tax years (sub-section (11)(b))

      Doc1: "for such other tax year." Doc2: "for the relevant tax year."

      No material change: both indicate no fresh direction required for application to other years; wording difference does not alter scope.

      Computation exclusion relating to first direction (sub-section (14)(a))

      Doc1: "commencing from the date on which the Approving Panel first directs the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for getting the inquiries conducted..." Doc2: "commencing from the date on which the first direction is issued by the Approving Panel to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner for getting the inquiries conducted..."

      Stylistic drafting variation; no practical effect on timing or process.

      Remuneration wording for Panel members (sub-section (21))

      Doc1: "paid such remuneration as may be prescribed." Doc2: "shall be paid such remuneration as prescribed."

      Minor drafting variance; both envisage remuneration prescribed by rules-no substantive difference in authority to prescribe or pay remuneration.

      Minor phrasing about satisfaction after hearing (sub-section (4))

      Doc1: "not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee." Doc2: "not satisfied by the explanation of the assessee."

      Purely linguistic; no practical impact.

      • Overall practical impact of the differences: the variations between the two texts are limited to minor drafting and stylistic changes with no material effect on substantive rights, duties, timelines or the operational mechanics of the referral, inquiry and decision-making process as set out in Clause/Section 274.


      Full Text:

      Section 274 Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax