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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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