Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

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

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 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/Clause Difference in Text Practical 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

Acts Income Tax