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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 279 "Income escaping assessment." 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 279 Income escaping assessment.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document under commentary is Clause 279 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), titled "Income escaping assessment." It sets out the Assessing Officer's power to assess or reassess income and to recompute losses, depreciation or other allowances where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The provision matters to taxpayers and the tax department because it governs reassessment powers and procedural exceptions; the effective date or decision date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 279 is placed in the Part concerning Procedure for assessment of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and is cross-related to sections 280, 281 and 284 (as per the text). The clause covers situations where "any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" for a tax year (defined in the clause as "the relevant tax year"). The text provides no definitional elaboration for "income escaping assessment" beyond the phrase itself. Not stated in the document: legislative intent beyond the power to assess/reassess; Not stated in the document: definitions of "assessee," "Assessing Officer," or procedural timelines.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 279 applies where, in the case of an assessee, any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for a tax year (the "relevant tax year"). The Assessing Officer (AO) is empowered, subject to the provisions of sections 280 to 286, to:

      • assess or reassess income for the relevant tax year; and
      • recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for that year.

      Subsection (2) expands the AO's power during proceedings under this clause to assess or reassess (a) the income which has escaped assessment and (b) income in respect of other issues that come to his notice subsequently, "irrespective of the fact that the provisions of sections 280, 281 and 284 were not complied with." The clause explicitly situates these powers within the framework of sections 280-286.

      Interpretation

      Interpretive cues: The provision is permissive ("may"), conferring discretionary powers on the AO rather than mandating reassessment. The clause ties the exercise of powers to procedural boundaries by reference to sections 280-286, suggesting that the AO's reassessment powers should be read and exercised in light of the procedural regime set out in that range of sections. The explicit statement that the AO may proceed "irrespective" of non-compliance with specified sections indicates a legislative intent to allow the AO to disregard certain procedural defaults when new issues or escaped incomes are detected during proceedings under this clause. Not stated in the document: any limiting language on the AO's discretion beyond the cross-reference to sections 280-286 (e.g., time limits, mandatory reasons, or proof thresholds).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The sole textual carve-out is that the AO's power is "subject to the provisions of sections 280 to 286," which implies that other procedural or substantive constraints in that span apply. Separately, subsection (2) provides an express exception to reliance on compliance with sections 280, 281 and 284, by allowing the AO to proceed "irrespective" of non-compliance with those sections. Not stated in the document: any express exceptions protecting taxpayers (e.g., requirement of material evidence or threshold of discovery) beyond those cross-references.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee files a return for tax year X but omits income from a particular rent receipt. During assessment proceedings under Clause 279, the AO discovers the omission. The AO may assess or reassess that omitted income and recompute related depreciation or deductions for tax year X. (This follows directly from subsection (1) and (2)(a).)
      • Example 2: During reassessment for tax year Y relating to omitted business income, the AO notices a separate unassessed capital gain (an "other issue") that came to light in the course of those proceedings. The AO may assess or reassess that separate income even if sections 280, 281 and 284 were not complied with. (Derived from subsection (2)(b).)
      • Example 3: Not stated in the document: any timing example (e.g., time limit for reassessment) or procedural steps for notice and opportunity to be heard.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly references sections 280 to 286, and subsection (2) specifically mentions sections 280, 281 and 284. The textual interplay suggests that reassessment powers under Clause 279 must be exercised in the broader procedural regime set by sections 280-286, but that the AO is empowered to ignore non-compliance with certain sections when new issues are discovered during proceedings. Not stated in the document: how conflicts between Clause 279 and the detailed provisions of sections 280-286 are to be resolved, or whether any particular section within 280-286 takes precedence.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      Document 1 (Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 279 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) contain materially similar core grants of power but differ in structure and specificity:

      • Structure and wording: The Act version (Document 1) presents two subsections: (1) empowers the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess/reassess or recompute loss/depreciation/other allowances where income has escaped assessment; (2) permits the AO to assess or reassess any issue which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently, irrespective of non-compliance with section 281. The Bill old version (Document 2) contains more detailed subparagraphing: subsection (1) separately lists (a) assess or reassess income and (b) recompute loss/depreciation/other allowances; subsection (2) explicitly lists (a) the income which has escaped assessment and (b) income in respect of other issues that come to his notice, and refers to non-compliance with sections 280, 281 and 284.
        • Practical impact: The Bill's older text is more granular and expressly cross-references three other sections (280, 281, 284) as potentially not complied with; the Act text narrows the non-compliance cross-reference to section 281 only. That narrowing in the Act reduces the list of procedural safeguards/requirements whose non-compliance can be disregarded for subsequent assessments. Practically, taxpayers may lose an argument based on non-compliance with sections 280 or 284 under the enacted wording as compared to the Bill's older draft; conversely, the Act clarifies fewer exceptions, which may limit AO discretion to ignore procedural non-compliance beyond section 281.
      • Scope of subsections addressing "other issues": The Bill expressly permits reassessment of "income in respect of other issues which come to his notice subsequently" and frames it with three referenced sections; the Act likewise permits reassessing "income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently" but only mentions section 281 non-compliance.
        • Practical impact: The Act's language ("any issue" vs Bill's "other issues") is substantively similar, but the narrower cross-reference to non-compliance potentially limits the AO's ability to proceed where procedural steps u/ss 280 or 284 were not completed. This change could increase litigation around the scope and applicability of procedural non-compliance as a bar to reassessment.
      • Placement and phrasing of proviso regarding section references: The Bill frames the non-compliance exception as "irrespective of the fact that the provisions of sections 280, 281 and 284 were not complied with." The Act places the equivalent exception but only cites section 281 and embeds it within a slightly different sentence construction.
        • Practical impact: By singling out section 281, the Act may be read to preserve the substantive effect of compliance with sections 280 and 284; taxpayers may seek to rely on non-compliance with sections 280/284 as a defense. The AO's procedural options may be marginally constrained compared with the Bill's older version.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers face potential reassessment not only for the specific escaped income but also for "other issues" that the AO may discover in the course of proceedings. The AO's discretion to proceed "irrespective" of non-compliance with sections 280, 281 and 284 increases the risk of additional assessments arising from procedural lapses. Taxpayers must therefore be vigilant in initial disclosures and supporting documentation to reduce the scope for reassessment under this clause.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the AO's power to reassess and to recompute losses and allowances, taxpayers should maintain contemporaneous records supporting claimed losses, depreciation schedules and other deductions for the relevant tax years. While the clause does not specify forms or timelines, documentation that substantiates the original return entries will be relevant if AO initiates reassessment proceedings.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 279 empowers the Assessing Officer to assess/reassess escaped income and to recompute losses, depreciation, and other allowances for the relevant tax year.
      • The AO's powers are framed "subject to the provisions of sections 280 to 286," indicating procedural linkage to that range of sections.
      • Subsection (2) allows reassessment of other issues that come to the AO's notice during proceedings, expressly permitting action "irrespective of the fact that the provisions of sections 280, 281 and 284 were not complied with."
      • The provision is permissive ("may"), conferring discretion rather than a mandatory duty on the AO.
      • Key omissions in the text: specific timelines, notice requirements, standards of proof, and definitions for terms such as "income escaping assessment" are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical consequence: taxpayers should ensure robust record-keeping because reassessment may encompass additional issues discovered during proceedings, even where certain procedural sections were not complied with.
      • Comparative note (Bill old version): the older draft explicitly referenced non-compliance with three sections (280, 281 and 284), which may be broader than the enacted Act's narrower reference (section 281 only). This may affect the scope of permissible reassessments tied to procedural non-compliance. (This comparative point is derived from the two provided documents.)

      Full Text:

      Section 279 Income escaping assessment.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax