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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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