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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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 282 "Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281." 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 282 Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These texts reproduce Clause/Section 282 of the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025, setting time limits for issuance of notices u/ss 280 and 281 (notices and show-cause notices in cases of income escaping assessment). The provisions delineate outer limits (four years; up to six years in specified circumstances) and a one-year minimum waiting period. The rule affects taxpayers, assessing officers and the Department; effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: references within the text are to sections 280 and 281 of the same enactment (Procedure for assessment). The provision governs temporal jurisdiction to issue notices where income is alleged to have escaped assessment. Definitions: the text does not supply definitions (for example, of "relevant tax year", "books of account", "other documents", "income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment" or "Assessing Officer"). Not stated in the document. Scope: applies to notices u/ss 280 (notice to assess) and 281 (notice to show cause) for the relevant tax year; sets both outer and inner temporal cut-offs and an exception where certain evidentiary thresholds are met or information indicates escaped income likely aggregating to fifty lakh rupees or more.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause/Section 282 provides a three-part temporal scheme.

      • Clause (1) - Notices u/s 280 (presumably a notice initiating proceedings for assessment of escaped income): barred after four years and three months from the end of the relevant tax year, unless a narrower exception in (1)(b) applies. A secondary window permits issuance between four years and three months and six years and three months only where the Assessing Officer possesses books of account or other documents/evidence related to an asset, expenditure, transaction or entry which shows that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.
      • Clause (2) - Notices u/s 281 (notice to show cause): barred if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant tax year, unless the case falls under (2)(b). An extended window up to six years is allowed where, as per information with the Assessing Officer, the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.
      • Clause (3) - A minimum waiting period: no notice u/s 280 or 281 shall be issued within one year from the end of any tax year.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The provision seeks to balance finality for taxpayers with the Department's interest in pursuing substantial cases of escaped income. The four-year rule (and four-year rule with three months for section 280) provides a general limitation period; the extension to six years is conditional on the presence of evidence or information indicating significant escaped income (threshold: fifty lakh rupees). The separate one-year bar suggests a cooling-off or administrative window during which notices cannot be issued, possibly to allow other processes (filing, assessment) to conclude; however, the document does not explain the policy reasons. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The text contains two express exceptions/provisos:

      • For section 280 - the extension up to six years applies only where the Assessing Officer "has in his possession" (in the Act text) books of account or other documents or evidence related to an asset/expenditure/transaction/entry showing escaped income likely amounting to Rs. 50,00,000 or more.
      • For section 281 - the extension up to six years applies where, "as per the information with the Assessing Officer", the escaped income amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000 or more. The text does not require possession of the documents; it requires information indicating the quantum.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A tax year ending 31 March 2025. Under clause (2)(a), a notice u/s 281 cannot be issued after 31 March 2029 (four years). However, if on 1 April 2028 the Assessing Officer has information that escaped income of Rs. 60 lakh is likely, a notice can still be issued up to 31 March 2031 (six years). These dates are illustrative arithmetic consistent with the text; the document does not provide calendar examples. Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: For section 280, the four years and three months cut-off: for the same year ending 31 March 2025, the ordinary bar would apply after 30 June 2029; but between 1 July 2029 and 30 June 2031 a notice may be issued only if the AO has in his possession books/documents showing escaped income of at least Rs. 50 lakh. The document does not define the nature of acceptable documents. Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: the text refers to sections 280 and 281. The clause differentiates tests for extension between those two sections: possession of documentary evidence is expressly required for section 280 extension, whereas for section 281 an information-based standard suffices. The provision does not reference any Rules, Notifications or Circulars. Not stated in the document: any linkage to penalty provisions, prosecution timelines, or assessment/revision provisions; nor any transitional or retrospective application rules.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should note that general finality arises at four years (or four years and three months for section 280), but the Department can reopen or issue notices up to six years where the threshold of Rs. 50 lakh is met. The divergence in the evidentiary standard between section 280 and 281 is material: possession of documentary evidence is required for section 280; for section 281, information in the AO's possession may suffice. This affects where and when taxpayers must preserve books and documents and when to expect notices.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the statutory reliance on "books of account or other documents or evidence" (for section 280) and "information with the Assessing Officer" (for section 281), stakeholders should preserve contemporaneous records that establish the nature, quantum and timing of assets, expenditures and transactions. The text, however, does not specify formats, retention periods beyond the statutory timelines, or proof standards for "possession" or "information". Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause/Section 282 establishes a general four-year limitation for notices u/ss 280 and 281, with differing technical adjustments.
      • Section 280 is subject to a four-years-and-three-months outer limit; extension up to six years and three months requires the AO to have "in his possession" books/documents/evidence showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakh or more.
      • Section 281 has a four-year cut-off; extension up to six years is permissible where, per the information with the AO, escaped income is or is likely to be Rs. 50 lakh or more.
      • A mandatory minimum: no notice u/s 280 or 281 can be issued within one year from the end of any tax year.
      • The text does not define key terms, explain thresholds' rationale, describe evidentiary standards, or state effective date or transitional rules. Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 282 (Bill, Old Version)Section 282 (Income-tax Act, 2025)Practical Impact
      Form/SourcePresented as Clause 282 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version); accompanied by a brief explanatory line: "Clause 282 of the Bill provides for time limit for notices..."Presented as Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (enacted text).Substantive wording largely identical; enactment confirms legislative finality. The explanatory note in the Bill is removed in the Act; no substantive legal effect.
      Phrasing regarding AO's materials (section 280)States the AO "has books of account or other documents or evidence related to any asset..."States the AO "has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence related to any asset..."The Act adds "in his possession", which emphasises physical or constructive control of documents by the AO at the time of issuing the notice. This could affect whether third-party information or mere leads suffice for a section 280 extension; the Act language arguably tightens the requirement to actual possession, potentially raising a procedural threshold for the Department.
      Minor temporal wordingUses same temporal markers (four years; four years and three months; up to six years).Same.No practical change.
      Explanatory sentenceIncludes a one-line explanatory sentence summarising purpose.Does not include that explanatory sentence, but otherwise identical.Cosmetic only; no change in operative law.

      Concluding Observations

      The enacted Section 282 and the Bill's Clause 282 are substantively congruent. The main drafting divergence is the Act's insertion of "in his possession" for the section 280 exception; this may be significant in practice as it highlights an evidentiary/possession requirement for the extended six-year window u/s 280. Otherwise, the provision sets a two-tier limitation approach (general four-year rule; extendable to six years in substantial cases of escaped income) and a one-year minimum bar, with a monetary threshold of fifty lakh rupees. The text omits definitions, evidentiary standards, procedural rules for proving "possession" or "information", effective date, and transitional provisions. Not stated in the document.


      Full Text:

      Section 282 Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax