Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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