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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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