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 ✕
🔎 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.
Relevance Default Date
    Act Rules Bills
    Comparative Review of Non-Cognizable Offences in Indian Income Tax Legislation : Clause 492 of the I...
    Act Rules Bills
    Safeguards and Procedures in Income Tax Prosecution : Clause 491 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
❯❯
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
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Non-cognizable classification of specified tax offences requires magistrate sanction before arrest or investigation, limiting summary enforcement.
Clause 492 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 designates specified income tax offences as non-cognizable for purposes of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by means of a non-obstante provision. As a result, arrest cannot be effected without a magistrate-issued warrant and investigations into those offences require prior magistrate authorization, imposing judicial gatekeeping at the threshold of criminal proceedings and constraining unilateral police action in tax enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Prior sanction for tax prosecution centralises oversight, enables compounding, and restricts arbitrary criminal initiation against taxpayers.
Clause 491 makes prior sanction by designated senior officers a precondition to prosecution for specified tax offences, authorises senior regional heads and the Board to issue directions, permits compounding of offences at any stage by senior officials, bars prosecution where specified penalties have been reduced or waived, and affirms that statements or documents given to tax authorities remain admissible notwithstanding an expectation of penalty reduction or compounding.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.

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