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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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