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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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