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
    Liberalizing Silver Imports: Analyzing the Impact of DGFT Notification No. 57/2023 on India's Trade ...
    Extension of the existing concessional import duties on specified edible oils up to and inclusive of...
    Levy of Export Duty on Molasses Exports
    Act RulesCustoms
    Anti-Dumping Duties: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
    Analysis of Recent Anti-Dumping Duty Imposition on Meta Phenylene Diamine Imports from China to Indi...
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Analyzing the Implications of Central Excise Duty Changes on Petroleum Products
    Challenges in corporate insolvency, particularly when dealing with contract terminations and arbitra...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Analyzing the Legal Dispute in Customs regarding provisional assessment: A Case of Procedural Lapses...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction u/s 80P: Navigating the Legal Labyrinth - Co-operative Societies Vis-a-vis Co-operative ba...
    Transition to the GST regime. Legal challenges posed by the GST regime on existing government contra...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal Complexities - Assessment in case of third parties post search and seizure - The pe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Scope of compliance of the Document Identification Number (DIN) in tax communications​​.
    Supreme Court's Scrutiny of ED's Conduct: Upholding Legal Standards in Arrest and Remand Procedures
    GST: transportation of goods, the role of e-way bills, and the implications of their cancellation - ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legality of Value Enhancement for the import of goods on the basis of allegation of Under-invoicing ...
    Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The Supreme Court's Ruling in regarding the status of home bu...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Nuances of Capital vs Revenue Expenditure: The Asian Hotels Ltd. Case Analysis
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Demand based on Form-26AS information from the Income Tax Department, without pre-show cause notice ...
    Importance of transparency in corporate governance and the rights of minority shareholders
    The case of Manish Sisodia versus CBI and DoE is not just a legal battle but also a matter of signif...
❯❯
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
    NotificationsDGFT
    Show AI Summary
    Liberalizing silver imports: expanding free actual user access and enabling bullion exchange imports to boost industrial inputs.
    Amendment to import policy for silver under Chapter 71 of ITC (HS) 2022 classifies semi manufactured silver as Free on an Actual User basis for specified manufacturing sectors and permits R&D imports by government or recognised institutions; it also revises HS code treatment to allow qualified jewellers to import via a recognised bullion exchange, expanding import access beyond nominated agencies.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Concessional import duties on specified edible oils extended, preserving customs and AIDC exemptions to support supply and affordability.
    Notification No. 02/2024 amends Notifications Nos. 48/2021 and 49/2021 to extend the concessional import duty treatment and the exemption from the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess for specified edible oils, preserving customs duty relief for listed soybean, palm and sunflower oil categories to maintain lower import costs and supply continuity.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Export duty on molasses imposed to secure domestic supply for ethanol blending and reduce fuel import reliance.
    A 50% export duty has been added to the Second Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, effective January 18, 2024, using the government's urgent power to levy export duties, to restrict molasses exports and increase domestic supply for ethanol production and to address sugar shortages and fuel-import dependence.
    Act RulesCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Anti-dumping duties protect domestic industry by allowing provisional and retrospective measures and circumvention checks on dumped imports.
    Anti-dumping duties under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 define anti-dumping duties, margin of dumping, export price and normal value, and set methods to determine dumping when direct comparisons are infeasible. The statute provides anti-circumvention and duty-absorption rules, permits provisional duties based on preliminary findings and retrospective duties in certain large cases, and allows conditional exemptions for consignments to export-oriented units and special economic zones.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Anti-dumping duty continuation on Meta Phenylene Diamine from China preserves domestic industry protection under sunset review recommendation.
    Continuation of anti-dumping duty on Meta Phenylene Diamine from China follows a sunset review finding continued dumping and injury to the domestic industry; the government imposed differentiated per-metric-ton duties on a named Chinese producer and other exporters, including imports from other countries exported via China, to be levied for a five-year period unless earlier revoked, superseded or amended and payable in Indian currency.
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Special Additional Excise Duty reduction may lower government revenues and influence fuel pricing and consumption.
    Notification No. 03/2024 amends Notification No. 18/2022 by reducing the Special Additional Excise Duty on production of petroleum crude, directly altering the statutory excise rate and thereby affecting government excise revenue, oil company margins and pricing incentives, potential consumer fuel prices given other tax and market factors, and environmental consumption incentives.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Wrongful invocation of bank guarantees not upheld where arbitration covers claims; liquidator may refile under insolvency law.
    The appellate tribunal found the liquidator's claims, including allegations of wrongful invocation of bank guarantees, were encompassed by pending arbitration and upheld deletion of the concessionaire from the insolvency-era causative-misconduct application, while permitting the liquidator to file a fresh insolvency application should subsequent arbitration facts necessitate separate action.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional assessment compliance: non-deliberate document delays without revenue impact warrant nominal penalties under provisional assessment rules.
    The tribunal examined Regulation 5 penalties for delayed document submission under the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, noting absence of mala fide conduct and no revenue implication. Emphasizing proportionality, the tribunal treated non-deliberate, revenue-neutral delays as warranting a nominal sanction rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, balancing enforcement of document-submission requirements with the factual context of compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Co-operative bank classification: licensing requirement determines cooperative societies' tax deduction eligibility under section 80P provisions.
    Eligibility for deduction under Section 80P depends on whether a cooperative society qualifies as a co-operative bank, which in turn requires evaluation of statutory definitions and the regulatory requirement of licensing under the Banking Regulation Act read with the NABARD Act and state cooperative laws; classification hinges on regulatory status and banking activity rather than merely providing credit to members.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST impact on government contracts: administrative review required to address tax liabilities and update contract pricing.
    Applicability of GST to government contracts where SOR and BOQ were not updated, creating additional tax liabilities; responsibility for incorporating the new tax regime into contract pricing and the administrative duty to address resultant tax increments. The court directed a formal representation process and a reasoned administrative decision after departmental consultation, with no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner pending resolution.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interpretation of Section 153C limits third party assessment timelines to when seized materials reach the Assessing Officer.
    The Supreme Court held that, for third parties found via search and seizure, the period for which returns must be filed is measured from the date seized materials are forwarded to the relevant Assessing Officer rather than from the date of the original search. The Court read Sections 153A and 153C to avoid unduly prejudicing uninvolved third parties and to prevent excessive record-retention and procedural burden, endorsing a fair, plain-language construction aligned with legislative intent.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN compliance: omission of Document Identification Number can render tax orders procedurally noncompliant under CBDT Circular.
    The dispute focuses on whether omission of the Document Identification Number (DIN) from a substantive tax order, despite issuance of an intimation letter containing the DIN, renders the communication noncompliant with CBDT Circular No.19/2019; the Tribunal treated a DIN-less order as deficient, rejected the revenue's rectification attempts and allowed relief to the assessee, while the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference, underscoring strict procedural adherence in tax communications.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Arrest Procedure: strict compliance with statutory grounds required to validate arrests and remand under anti-money-laundering law.
    The validity of arrests and remand hinges on recording and furnishing written reasons for belief in the arrested person's involvement and transparent communication of grounds; remand courts must apply independent mind and cannot cure constitutional infirmities arising from defective arrests, and investigative conduct suggesting arbitrariness or abuse of process undermines lawful custody.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Intent to evade tax determines whether e way bill cancellations warrant seizure measures or minor breach penalties under GST.
    Applicability of detention and seizure provisions under the GST regime turns on the presence of intent to evade tax; where such intent is absent, the statutory scheme contemplates treatment as a minor breach subject to lighter penal consequences. Authorities must assess whether e way bill irregularities reflect inadvertent or excusable circumstances warranting penalties for non compliance rather than initiation of measures reserved for deliberate tax evasion.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs valuation integrity requires voluntary, corroborated evidence before enhancing declared import value or imposing penalties.
    Enhancement of import value and penalties for alleged under invoicing were unsupported where export declarations were unattested photocopies later rectified by the supplier, key statements under Section 108 were retracted and lacked corroboration, and contemporaneous import comparisons were dismissed without contrary evidence; therefore, voluntariness and corroborative evidence are required before altering declared value or imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Financial Creditor Status: Home buyers must receive equal treatment in IBC resolution plans irrespective of RERA remedies.
    The Court held that the statutory explanation deeming amounts raised from allottees as having the commercial effect of borrowing brings home buyers within the class of financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC; it disapproved any subdivision treating buyers who pursued RERA remedies as a separate subclass, finding such differential treatment to be inequitable and violative of Article 14, and directed equal treatment of allottees in resolution plan consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Renovation and consultancy expenses for hotels treated as revenue when they preserve existing assets without creating enduring capital benefits.
    Classification of renovation and related consultancy expenses turns on whether works create a new asset or an enduring capital advantage. Expenditure that preserves existing condition, maintains competitiveness, or restores assets without materially improving life or efficiency is revenue in nature. Consultancy fees aligned with such maintenance are treated as revenue expenditure rather than capital outlay.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Form 26AS reliance insufficient where no proper investigation; valuation rules and natural justice must govern service tax demands.
    Reliance on Form-26AS alone cannot sustain a service tax demand absent proper investigation and procedural consultation; valuation must follow the applicable valuation rules for works contract services with consideration of claimed abatements and any notification based relief, and invocation of the extended period of limitation requires factual basis beyond third party data or ex parte adjudication.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to investigation documents upheld, reinforcing transparency and minority investor rights in regulatory proceedings.
    Minority shareholders challenged alleged securities-law violations and sought access to investigation and settlement-related documents; the court found that shareholders could not be treated as outsiders and were entitled to the requested materials despite confidentiality claims, while not definitively ruling on the legality of the settlement process, stressing transparency in corporate governance and implications for application of confidentiality provisions in regulatory proceedings.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Right to speedy trial can justify bail when prolonged trial delay exists and courts must reassess bail applications.
    The matter focuses on bail principles and statutory interpretation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, questioning whether proceeds arising from an administrative excise policy constitute proceeds of crime and whether money laundering prosecution requires independent evidence distinct from a scheduled offence. Defence objections include prolonged custody, voluminous evidence, and constitutional protections for ministerial decision making. The court emphasized that bail assessments are tentative, must account for the accused's right to a speedy trial where delay is not attributable to them, and allowed liberty to re apply for bail or interim relief if trial delay or medical emergency arises, to be considered on merits.

    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