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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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