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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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