Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 283 "Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      10 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 283 Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 283 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It establishes that a notice u/s 280 may be issued at any time to make assessments, reassessments or recomputations to give effect to findings/directions contained in appellate orders or directions of the Approving Panel (section 274(6)). A temporal exception is provided where other time-limiting provisions already prevent assessment for the tax year concerned. Affects taxpayers and the tax department. Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 283 refers to sections 280 and 282 and to section 274(6) and 274(4) of the Bill. Context: Clause 283 addresses the procedural situation where an assessment, reassessment or recomputation is required "in consequence of or to give effect to" (i) findings or directions in an order passed by "any authority, Tribunal or court" in proceedings under the Act (by way of appeal, reference or revision) or by a court in proceedings under any other law; or (ii) directions issued by the Approving Panel u/s 274(6). Coverage: Notices u/s 280 for assessments/reassessments/recomputations intended to implement appellate or Approving Panel outcomes. Definitions/explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 283 provides two primary rules. First (sub-section (1)): "Irrespective of anything contained in sections 280 and 282, the notice u/s 280 may be issued at any time" where the purpose is to make an assessment, reassessment or recomputation to implement (a) any finding or direction in an order by any authority, Tribunal or court in proceedings under the Act (appeal/reference/revision) or by a Court in proceedings under any other law; or (b) directions of the Approving Panel u/s 274(6). Second (sub-section (2)): the rule in sub-section (1) does not apply if the assessment/reassessment/recomputation relates to a tax year for which, by reason of other provisions limiting time for such actions, an assessment/reassessment/recomputation could not have been made at the time when (a) the order that was the subject-matter of the appeal/reference/revision was made; or (b) the reference to the Approving Panel u/s 274(4) was made.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The clause is framed to ensure that the tax administration can issue notices u/s 280 "at any time" to give effect to appellate findings or Approving Panel directions, thereby avoiding technical time-bar obstacles that might otherwise preclude implementation. The saving in sub-section (2) shows a clear legislative concern to preserve other express time-bar limits: if, at the time the defining event occurred (the appellate order or the reference to the Approving Panel), a time limitation in another provision already precluded assessment for the tax year, then the "any time" power does not apply. Interpretive principle: the provision operates as a targeted override of specified procedural limitations (sections 280 and 282) except where a different time-bar already existed at the relevant point in time.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The main proviso is sub-section (2). It carves out cases where the assessment/reassessment/recomputation pertains to a tax year for which, due to other time-limiting provisions, such an action could not have been taken at the time of (a) the making of the order which was the subject of appeal/reference/revision, or (b) the reference to the Approving Panel u/s 274(4). The clause therefore preserves the operation of other express statutory time limits if they had already operated to preclude assessment when the triggering event occurred.

      Interplay

      Clause 283 expressly references and purports to operate "Irrespective of anything contained in sections 280 and 282," indicating direct interplay with those provisions. It also invokes section 274(6) (directions by the Approving Panel) and section 274(4) (reference to the Approving Panel). The text does not specify interaction with any rules, notifications or circulars. Specific cross-references to other provisions beyond those named are not provided in the clause. Any broader interaction with the scheme of limitation, assessment procedure or appellate process must be inferred from surrounding legislation; however, such inference is not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Express override language: The Bill (old version) stated "Irrespective of anything contained in sections 280 and 282," whereas the enacted Section 283 in the Income-tax Act, 2025, states "Irrespective of anything contained in section 282," removing the explicit reference to section 280.
        • Practical impact: The Bill version expressly sought to displace both sections 280 and 282 to the extent necessary to permit issuance of a notice u/s 280 at any time for assessments/reassessments/recomputations that give effect to appellate or Approving Panel directions. The enacted text narrows the express override to section 282 only. This suggests a narrower legislative carve-out in the Act: the special power to issue a section 280 notice "at any time" is not expressly made to override any limiting or procedural provision in section 280 itself. Practically, this may subject the use of section 280 notices to any time-related or procedural constraints contained within section 280 (if any), whereas the Bill's older wording sought to make the power entirely independent of both sections 280 and 282.
      • Substantive text otherwise: Apart from the change noted above, the substantive subsections (1) and (2), their clauses (a) and (b), and the exceptions language are materially identical between the Bill (old version) and the enacted section.
        • Practical impact: The core rule - that notices u/s 280 may be issued to give effect to appellate/other authority orders or Approving Panel directions, subject to the temporal exception in sub-section (2) - remains the same in both texts.
      • Ancillary commentary: The Bill text as provided contained an explanatory line "Clause 283 of the Bill seeks to provide provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, directions from approving panel." The enacted provision does not contain such commentary.
        • Practical impact: Purely descriptive; no legal effect.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The provision authorises the department to issue section 280 notices at any time to implement appellate or Approving Panel directions. Taxpayers facing an adverse appellate order or an Approving Panel direction should anticipate that the department may initiate assessments/reassessments/recomputations without regard to the normal timing constraints in sections 280 and 282 (subject to the proviso in sub-section (2)). This potentially increases exposure to late assessments where an appellate outcome requires implementation.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Taxpayers should retain records and documentary evidence relating to the tax years in question even after ordinary limitation periods lapse if those years remain subject to potential appellate modification or Approving Panel reference. The statute contemplates post-limitation implementation where an order or direction requires recomputation; therefore continuity and availability of records will be material. The clause itself does not prescribe record retention periods or specific evidentiary standards. Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 283 permits issuance of a notice u/s 280 "at any time" to make assessments, reassessments or recomputations to give effect to appellate orders or Approving Panel directions.
      • The clause expressly seeks to operate irrespective of sections 280 and 282 (in the Bill text), thereby creating a targeted override of those procedural limits to the extent necessary to effect appellate or Approving Panel outcomes.
      • Sub-section (2) preserves other statutory time limits: if at the time the triggering order or reference occurred other provisions already precluded assessment for the tax year, the "any time" power does not apply.
      • The provision applies to orders by "any authority, Tribunal or court" in proceedings under the Act and to court orders under other laws, as well as to directions of the Approving Panel u/s 274(6).
      • The clause imposes no procedural formalities, timelines, or forms beyond authorising the issuance of a section 280 notice; procedural specifics and practical operation will depend on other provisions and implementation practice. Not stated in the document.
      • Taxpayers should be aware that appellate outcomes can revive or prompt assessment actions even after ordinary limitation periods, subject to the carve-out in sub-section (2).
      • Further interaction with rules, circulars or administrative practice is not addressed in the clause. Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 283 Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax