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 286 "Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation" 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 286 Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Clause 286 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out time limits for making assessment, reassessment and recomputation orders, specifies the dates from which those limitations run, and lists exceptions/tolling periods. It affects taxpayers, Assessing Officers, Transfer Pricing Officers, and other tax authorities; it governs procedural limitation periods. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 286 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025; cross-references include sections 270(10), 271, 263(6), 239(3)(b), 279, 280, 166, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378, 292, 279, 270(13), 244, 375, 269, 383, 384, 159, 274 and legacy sections 153A(2), 245HA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). Context: procedural limitation for tax proceedings. Coverage includes a table of eleven specified proceedings indicating the date from which time-limit is to be calculated and the duration allowed; additional subsections extend or suspend time-limits in designated circumstances and define exclusions for computing time.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Clause 286 prescribes that no order in respect of specified proceedings (listed in a Table with Sl. Nos. 1-11) shall be made after expiry of the period specified in column D, computed from the date in column C. The Table identifies types of assessment or order (e.g., assessment u/ss 270(10)/271; orders consequent to updated returns; reassessment u/s 279; orders to give effect to court or specified statutory directions; modification to give effect to orders u/s 166 read with 377). Time limits range predominantly at one year (for many entries), with certain entries at six months (extendable to nine) and two months for modification u/s 166 read with 377. Revival cases are governed by one-year limits measured from the month of revival (explicitly referencing section 153A(2) or section 292). Sub-section (2) provides a 12-month extension where Transfer Pricing Officer reference u/s 166(1) is made. Sub-section (3) enumerates exclusion/tolling periods for computing time (including re-hearing at assessee request, court-ordered stays, Central Government intimation regarding contravention of Schedule III or section 270(11)(i), audit/inventory valuation directions u/s 268(5), references to Valuation Officer u/s 269(1), declarations u/s 375, Board for Advance Rulings applications, exchange of information references under agreements in section 159, references for impermissible avoidance arrangements u/s 274(1), and specifically a search/requisition-related exclusion not exceeding 180 days). Sub-sections (4)-(7) provide further extensions and remedial adjustments where excluded periods leave less than minimum operational time (e.g., extend remaining period to 60 days; extend to one year following abatement of Interim Board for Settlement proceedings u/s 245HA of the 1961 Act; extend to month-end where remaining time ends before month-end after excluding a specified period). Sub-section (8) deems certain assessments to be "made in consequence of or to give effect to" orders referred to in entry Sl. No. 8 (i.e., orders under specified sections or court orders), including cross-assessee reallocation of income, subject to opportunity to be heard where applicable.

        Interpretation

        The text reflects a legislative intent to impose relatively short, definite limitation periods (commonly one year) for making various assessment and consequential orders, while providing specific, enumerated circumstances when time will be excluded or extended to accommodate due process (e.g., audits, valuations, references, stay of proceedings, transfer-pricing processes, searches). The inclusion of minimum residual periods (60 days) indicates an intent to ensure Assessing Officers have a baseline time to conclude proceedings after interruptions. The 12-month extension for transfer pricing references signals recognition of the complexity of TP determinations.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        The clause provides multiple carve-outs in sub-section (3) (a-k) that exclude particular periods from computation of limitation; minimum extension rules appear in subsections (4)-(7). Explicit provisos include: the 180-day maximum exclusion for search/requisition (sub-section (3)(j)); the 60-day maximum for certain declaration-linked exclusions (sub-section (3)(f)); the possibility to extend a six-month period to nine months with approval (Table entry 10). For abated Interim Board for Settlement proceedings, the remaining period is deemed extended to one year (sub-section (6)).

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: An assessment u/s 270(10) for tax year T has a time limit computed to the end of the financial year succeeding T; the assessing officer must complete the order within one year from that date, subject to exclusions. (Derived from Table Sl. No. 1.)
        • Example 2: Where the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 166(1), the time limit prescribed for assessment/reassessment is extended by an additional twelve months. (Derived from sub-section (2).)
        • Example 3: If a search u/s 247 is conducted and seized items are returned after 140 days, that 140-day period is excluded from computation of the limitation (sub-section (3)(j)), and if the remaining time post-exclusion is under 60 days, the remaining period is extended to 60 days (sub-section (4)).

        Interplay

        The provision cross-refers to numerous other provisions and to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (e.g., sections 153A(2), 245HA). It interacts with transfer-pricing processes (section 166), valuation and audit directions (sections 268, 269), Board for Advance Rulings procedures (sections 383-384), exchange-of-information mechanisms (section 159), and impermissible avoidance arrangement declarations (section 274). The clause anticipates coordination with search/requisition rules (sections 247-248) and tribunal/court stays. No rules or notifications beyond those statutory cross-references are referenced in the clause itself.

        Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

        Summary of primary differences between Section 286 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and Clause 286 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2):

        • Statutory references to revival: Document 1 (Section 286) lists revival u/s 292 (without the separate reference to section 153A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Document 2 (Bill) expressly references revival "as per section 153A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or section 292."
          • Practical impact: Document 2 expressly preserves the link to revival under the legacy section 153A(2) of the 1961 Act (suggesting continuity for assessments revivied under search/seizure provisions), whereas Document 1 omits that explicit cross-reference. This may affect interpretive clarity for cases revived under 153A(2).
        • Exclusion periods linked to searches/requisitions: Document 2 includes a specific exclusion period (sub-section (3)(j)) described as "the period (not exceeding one hundred eighty days) commencing from the date on which a search is initiated u/s 247 or a requisition is made u/s 248 and ending on the date on which the seized items or the requisitioned items, are handed over..." with detailed sub-clauses (i)-(iii). Document 1 does not contain this (j) entry; instead Document 1 contains other exclusion grounds (for instance multiple items including references to section 375 declaration period) but not the explicit search/requisition clause in the same form.
          • Practical impact: Document 2 gives an express and time-limited exclusion for periods relating to searches/requisitions (up to 180 days), clarifying tolling in search scenarios. Its absence in Document 1 may result in less explicit protection of time excluded for search/requisition handling, potentially shortening effective assessment limitation where searches occur unless other provisions apply.
        • Wording and drafting differences in table phrasing: Several minor drafting differences occur in column C entries (dates from which time limits are calculated). For example, Document 1 uses "End of the financial year succeeding the relevant tax year for which assessment is made" for Sl. No. 1, whereas Document 2 states "End of the financial year succeeding the relevant tax year."
          • Practical impact: These are drafting style variations with negligible substantive effect, but the slightly narrower phrasing in Document 1 may be read as clarifying the reference to the particular assessment year.
        • Sub-section lettering and numerical cross-references: Document 1's sub-section (3)(f) refers to "the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration u/s 375(1) and ending with the date on which the order u/s 375(3) is made by him;" Document 2 has the same but places search-related tolling at (3)(j) and moves the other jurisdictional reference to (3)(k).
          • Practical impact: Reordering may affect cross-referencing in later amendments; Document 2's structure makes search/requisition exclusion explicit and earlier than the jurisdictional reference at k - practical effect limited except for drafting clarity.
        • Other textual differences: Document 1 contains specific additional sub-sections not present or differently worded in Document 2 - for instance Document 1 contains sub-section (6) cross-applying extension for purposes of sections 282, 287, 288 and 296 and interest u/s 437; Document 2 contains an analogous provision.
          • Practical impact: Largely parity, with differences focussed on the explicit search/requisition exclusion and the 153A(2) cross-reference.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: The short one-year and six-month limitation windows require prompt administrative action by tax authorities; taxpayers should monitor notices/orders and potential reopening/revival triggers. The specified exclusions mean timelines may be tolled in many procedural situations-tax practitioners must track those tolling events carefully (e.g., TP references, valuations, searches, advance rulings applications).
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: The clause implies the need to retain records documenting dates of searches/requisitions, dates of receipts of Valuation Officer reports, dates of Board for Advance Ruling responses, and dates of declarations/orders under relevant sections, because these dates control exclusion computation. Not stated in the document: procedural forms or filings to notify these dates to Assessing Officers (explicit mechanisms are Not stated in the document.).

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 286 prescribes short, specific limitation periods (mostly one year) for assessment, reassessment and recomputation.
        • Multiple, enumerated exclusion/tolling events preserve time during procedural or evidentiary delays (e.g., audits, valuations, TP references, searches, advance rulings, exchange-of-information).
        • A 12-month extension applies where Transfer Pricing Officer reference is made u/s 166(1).
        • Specific minimum residual time rules (extend to 60 days) and special extensions (e.g., one year after abatement of Interim Board for Settlement) ensure Assessing Officers retain baseline time to conclude matters.
        • The Bill explicitly references revival u/s 153A(2) of the 1961 Act for revived assessments, preserving continuity with legacy search-based revival mechanisms.
        • Practitioners must carefully track triggering and ending dates for exclusion events to compute limitation accurately.
        • Where the clause is silent on implementation details (e.g., procedural filings to record exclusion events), such rules are Not stated in the document.

        Full Text:

        Section 286 Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax