Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction between Capital Gains and Business Income: Comprehensive Analysis of a Income Tax Case
    Case Laws Income Tax
    A Multifaceted Legal Analysis on Transfer Pricing and Tonnage Tax Scheme, Bareboat Charter, Interest...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessment of Eligibility for Tax Deductions Under Scrutiny: Tribunal Upholds PCIT's Revisionary Pow...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Employee Benefits: TDS on value of accommodation provided to the employees at the rate o...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Intricacies of Unexplained Investment and Legal Recourse: A Comprehensive Analysis of a recent C...
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of property income: conversion into business income denies capital-gains relief and alters deduction eligibility.
Where land initially held as a capital asset is developed and sold through partnership activity with a profit motive, the asset can be characterized as having undergone conversion into stock-in-trade and treated as business income; that characterization determines tax consequences by excluding capital-gains-specific deductions and reinvestment reliefs, and depends on the taxpayer's intention and the transactional pattern.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer pricing applicability to tonnage tax scheme narrowed; tonnage-covered operations exempted from transfer pricing obligations.
Transfer pricing provisions were held inapplicable to operations covered by the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and transfer pricing adjustments based on differential interest for a bareboat charter cum demise lease were rejected in light of prior consistent rulings. The Tribunal treated the relevant interest income and expenditure as business income, examined whether a negative lien equated to a fee-bearing corporate guarantee, and reviewed allocation principles for common interest and hire-charge adjustments between tonnage and non-tonnage activities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revisionary power under section 263 upholds reassessment where deduction eligibility under section 80IB(11A) is lacking.
The PCIT found the assessee ineligible for the deduction under section 80IB because operations commenced outside the period in section 80IB(11A); the original assessment accepted the deduction without examining this eligibility. The PCIT issued a show-cause and, treating the original order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, exercised revisionary power under section 263 to quash the order and direct reassessment, the Tribunal upholding that revision was appropriate where the error was beyond mere rectification remedies.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Perquisite valuation: absence of employer concession leads to no TDS on rent-free employee accommodation under valuation rules.
The tribunal concluded that perquisite taxation on rent-free accommodation requires a demonstrable concession by the employer; in the absence of such concession the perquisite value is nil. Although the institution is not a Central Government entity, the Revenue's invocation of Rule 3 and fixed percentage valuation was premature. The appellate deletion of the withholding demand was affirmed on the ground that no concession existed and therefore no taxable perquisite arose.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Unexplained investments deemed taxable where cancellation deeds lack civil adjudication and source credibility is unproven.
The tribunal sustained income tax additions under the unexplained investment provision, holding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and reality of alleged fund sources for a land purchase revealed in a survey, and that registered cancellation deeds without a civil court decree do not legally negate the original transaction for tax purposes.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Topic Clause 282 (Bill, Old Version) Section 282 (Income-tax Act, 2025) Practical Impact
Form/Source Presented 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 wording Uses same temporal markers (four years; four years and three months; up to six years). Same. No practical change.
Explanatory sentence Includes 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

Acts Income Tax