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
    Ensuring Procedural Fairness in GST Registration Cancellation: Analysis of a High Court Ruling
    Case LawsService Tax
    The Intersection of International Business and Service Tax: The Export of Services Under Indian Serv...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    From Denial to Grant: A Legal Examination of Bail in Money Laundering Allegations
    GST Registration Cancellation and the Rule of Law: Insights from a Key Bombay High Court Judgment
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Excise Duty Valuation and Limitation Period Extension: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgmen...
    Interpreting Limitation and Acknowledgment of Debt under the IBC: A Detailed Legal Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Judicial Scrutiny of Arrest Powers under GST Legislation: Balancing Individual Rights and Statutory ...
    Navigating the Legal Maze: Electricity Dues vs. Insolvency Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    From Valuation to Penalty and redemption fine: Legal Implications of Importing Restricted Goods in C...
    Case LawsService Tax
    Analyzing the Implications of Delay in Tax Adjudication: A Case Study
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Secured Creditors and Asset Disposal in Liquidation: High Court's Balancing Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Contractual Compliance and GST Reimbursement: Unpacking a Landmark Judgment"
❯❯
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
    Procedural fairness in GST registration: specific, detailed show cause notices are required to protect taxpayer hearing rights.
    Cancellation of GST registration requires adherence to procedural fairness, with show cause notices containing precise and detailed allegations so a taxpayer can mount an effective defence; technical portal limitations do not excuse failures to particularise allegations and authorities should issue a fresh detailed notice where the initial notice is defective.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Export of service: services benefiting a foreign recipient's overseas business can qualify as exports, affecting service tax liability.
    Whether commissions earned by an Indian sub agent for procuring orders for a foreign principal qualify as export of service under the Export of Service Rules 2005 depends on the destination based consumption tax concept: the place where benefit accrues and the location of the service recipient determine export character, and services benefiting a foreign recipient's overseas business that meet the Rules' conditions are treated as exports and outside domestic service tax.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
    The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
    The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in money laundering cases-personal liberty and pretrial custody can outweigh investigatory severity when trial is pending.
    The dispute examines bail law in money laundering allegations where the High Court denied bail based on the statutory construction of money laundering and the concept of proceeds of crime, treating the accused as central to an alleged conspiracy; by contrast, the higher court emphasised personal liberty, the duration of pretrial custody, the absence of trial commencement, and the accused's non-inclusion as an accused in the prosecuting agency's charge-sheet, applying the principle of bail over continued detention within the statutory bail regime for money laundering.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice requires specific show cause particulars and precludes vague retrospective GST registration cancellations.
    The court found the show cause notice to be vague and deficient in particulars, resulting in a breach of natural justice because the taxpayer was not provided relevant material or evidence. It held that retrospective cancellation without specific mention in the notice lacked legal support and stressed that administrative authorities must avoid arbitrary action, provide clear particulars, and adhere to procedural and statutory norms under the GST regime.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Excise duty valuation: inclusion of customer duty benefits affects assessable value; intent determines extended limitation applicability.
    Excise duty valuation focuses on whether benefits from transferred advance licences are includable in the transaction value for assessable value, assessed against statutory value principles and precedent. The extended limitation regime requires proof of deliberate evasion-fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression-and the Court distinguishes honest legal interpretation from intentional suppression, emphasising mens rea and conduct when applying the extended period to valuation disputes.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Acknowledgment of debt in corporate records can extend limitation, enabling insolvency petitions after prior procedural stays.
    The tribunal addressed whether acknowledgments in financial statements and corporate conduct extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act for insolvency petitions, factoring in statutory exclusion of time spent under prior SICA proceedings. It held that a holistic appraisal of balance sheet entries, director's reports and the debtor's conduct can constitute an implicit acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period, thereby operating to extend time for filing an insolvency application.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
    The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
    The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
    The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
    Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to comply with GST summons: noncompliance can permit statutory enforcement while safeguards against arbitrary arrest remain.
    The Supreme Court held that individuals summoned under the GST regime have an enforceable duty to comply with lawful summons; non compliance may trigger statutory enforcement, including arrest where prescribed conditions are met. The Court limited judicial interference in administrative enforcement, underscoring that arrest powers under the CGST Act must be exercised within statutory conditions and subject to safeguards against arbitrary action, while permitting authorities to proceed if respondents fail to comply after a final opportunity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Priority of electricity dues questioned as insolvency rules may alter creditor ranking during corporate liquidation.
    The central issue is whether electricity dues constitute a security interest that makes the supplier a secured creditor with a first charge on assets, or whether such dues are operational/governmental claims subordinated by the IBC waterfall; this turns on registration and formal requirements for security interests and on reconciling the Electricity Act's recovery regime with the IBC's overriding, comprehensive insolvency priority scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
    Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption fine reduction for restricted imports emphasises proportionality in customs penalty and valuation disputes practice.
    Valuation of imported used multifunction machines was reassessed by a Chartered Engineer, supporting an enhanced customs value while prompting scrutiny of their classification as restricted and the legal basis for detention. The Tribunal evaluated confiscation limits and applied proportionality in monetary sanctions, reducing the imposed penalty and redemption fine to specified proportions of the enhanced value, thereby illustrating judicial discretion in balancing enforcement with fairness in customs adjudication.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay in tax adjudication undermines statutory timeframe and can violate principles of natural justice, affecting taxpayers' rights.
    Inordinate delay in adjudicating a service tax show cause notice raised whether such delay contravened the statutory timeframe under Section 73 and violated principles of natural justice; the delay of about a decade, despite an early response by the taxpayer, was characterised as inordinate and prejudicial, inconsistent with the statutory aim of prompt determination and established precedents requiring proceedings to conclude within a reasonable period.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Secured creditor priority upheld; asset protection costs initially borne by creditors and rival claims sent to the specialized tribunal for adjudication.
    The court transferred disputes over assets of a company in liquidation to the specialized insolvency tribunal for expedited adjudication, affirmed the priority of secured creditors while permitting other claimants to present possessory or contractual claims before the tribunal, and ordered that interim asset protection expenses be initially borne by secured creditors but remain recoverable as part of their claims.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
    Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST reimbursement entitlement affirmed for contract wide transactions, requiring payment with statutory interest and retrospective calculation.
    The court construed amended contract clauses to cover GST impact on both direct and indirect transactions, concluding that the implementing agency's cessation of reimbursements and retrospective recoveries breached contractual promises and principles of promissory estoppel and Article 14, giving rise to an entitlement to reimbursement of withheld GST sums with statutory interest and a court directed timeline for calculation and payment.

    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