Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Tax Exemptions u/s 80P: The Supreme Court's Verdict on Cooperative Societies vs. Banks
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Principles of Natural Justice in Tax Litigation: Unraveling the Significance of Cross-Examination Ri...
    Circulars Income Tax
    Deadline Extension for Processing E-Filed Tax Returns: Refund Claims on Income Tax Returns
    Notifications Income Tax
    Modes of filing of ITR: Amendments to Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules 1962
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Legal Timelines: The Impact of Incomplete ITBA Orders on Appeal Limitations.
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Thin Line Between Charity and Commerce: Amendment of Trust Deed and Compliance with S...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Changing Objectives of Registered Societies: Exemption u/s 11 and survival of the Registration u/s 1...
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax exemption under Section 80P clarified: cooperative societies engaged in non banking, member centric activities retain deduction eligibility.
Classification for tax concessions under Section 80P depends on an entity's functional character, regulatory oversight, and whether it engages in commercial banking. Entities that are member centric and do not perform commercial banking functions align with the legislative intent to promote cooperative societies and remain eligible for deductions; regulatory distinctions and precedents support treating non bank cooperative activity as within the exemption framework.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Cross examination rights in tax proceedings protect taxpayers when third party seized evidence is used against them.
The core issue is whether reliance on third party seized documents and an employee's statement to attribute unaccounted interest to the assessee was permissible without permitting cross examination or testing a retraction affidavit. Denial of the opportunity to confront the declarant engages principles of natural justice, and indirect evidence requires direct inquiry and corroboration before adverse tax findings can be sustained.
Circulars Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Processing of e-filed refund claims extended, allowing administrative approval for delayed non-scrutiny returns to secure refunds.
Processing of electronically filed income-tax returns with refund claims may be completed beyond prescribed time limits for non-scrutiny cases where technical problems or other non-fault causes delayed processing. Assessing officers may process such returns only after prior approval from higher tax authorities; technical support and supervisory monitoring will be provided. The relaxation excludes returns under scrutiny, returns showing or likely to show a payable demand, and returns unprocessed due to taxpayer fault.
Notifications Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Electronic filing requirements expanded: audit liable taxpayers must file digitally; senior taxpayers retain flexible filing options.
Rule 12 amendments require electronic filing for individuals and HUFs subject to audit under section 44AB, permitting filing via digital signature or electronic verification. For other taxpayers the permitted modes are digital signature, electronic transmission with verification code, or electronic filing followed by submission of Form ITR-V. Senior taxpayers are afforded additional flexibility: specified forms may be filed with digital signature, electronically with verification code, electronically with subsequent ITR-V submission, or on paper. The notification also substitutes ITR-1, ITR-3 and ITR-5.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incomplete assessment communication can delay the start of the limitation period for appeals when essential contents are not disclosed.
Incomplete ITBA order uploads do not void an assessment but may postpone the commencement of the limitation period for appeals because knowledge of decision requires understanding the essential contents; defective communication can justify extension of time even though the assessment's substantive validity remains unaffected.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Charitable status preserved where incidental surplus, trustee payments, or deed amendments further educational objectives without private benefit.
The Court analysed whether surplus generation, fee policies, deed amendments, and payments to trustees removed an educational trust's charitable purpose. It held that incidental surplus and deed changes furthering objectives do not automatically negate charitable character, and payments for genuine services do not necessarily amount to private benefit. Cancellation of registration requires proof of lack of genuineness or objective deviation; mere shortcomings or commercial elements aimed at sustainability are insufficient.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Alteration of objects: failure to notify tax authority can jeopardise a society's registered status under section 12A.
A material amendment of a registered society's objects, coupled with failure to intimate the Commissioner under rule 17B and Form No.10A, undermines the basis of registration under Section 12A; Section 12AA(3) addresses activities inconsistent with objects, whereas fundamental change in the objects themselves requires statutory intimation to preserve the original registration.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax