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
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
    Electronic Communication (E-Service) of Show Cause Notices on the GST Portal: Limits of Validity and...
    Electronic Credit Ledger and Revenue Protection: A Strict Construction of Rule 86A under the CGST Re...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Search, Seizure, and Total Income: Interpreting Section 153A in Light of Incriminating Material - 20...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies: Bypassing Statutory Mechanisms: Limits of Article 226 Wh...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) denial on Share Buybacks under GST: Furtherance of Business vs. Statutory Exc...
    Deeming Fictions and ITC Reversal: Gujarat AAAR on Mutual Fund Transactions as Exempt Supplies
    Show Cause, Don't Pre-Determine: Judicial Scrutiny of Section 74 Notices under the TNGST Act / CGST ...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Benami Attachments and the Collapse of Precedent: Tribunal's Response to the Ganpati Dealcom Review
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Dead Credits and Transitional Limits: CESTAT Larger Bench on Refund of Education and Krishi Kalyan C...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Judicially Crafted SOP: Kerala High Court on Bank Powers to Freeze Suspicious Accounts under PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Computer-Aided Scrutiny: Invalid Scrutiny Notices and CBDT Instructions: ITAT Kolkata Quashes Assess...
    Case LawsCustoms
    High Speed Diesel or Base Oil? Scientific Evidence, Expert Opinion and Tariff Interpretation under C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Characterisation of Aircraft Leases under the India-Ireland DTAA: Operating Lease, Financial Lease, ...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Cognizance, Custody and Complaints under PMLA: The Supreme Court's Integration of BNSS and CrPC Norm...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rental of Aircraft in International Traffic: Dry Leasing and Permanent Establishment: Article 8(1) o...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    MLI, PPT and Aircraft Leasing: Operating vs. Finance Lease and PE Risk in Aircraft Leasing: Reassess...
    E-Way Bills, Expiry and Intent (Mens Rea): Reassessing GST Penalties: Reading Sections 129 and 130 i...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Arrest, Presumption, and Proceeds of Crime: A Holistic Analysis of PMLA Bail Jurisprudence in a GST-...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Wheel Loaders under Heading 8429: From Practice to Principle: Mining Use, HSN Note...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction: Adequate Enquiry, Limited Scrutiny, and the Proper Use of Section...
❯❯
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
    Electronic service of GST show cause notices must be in the prescribed portal location to ensure a real opportunity to be heard.
    Uploading an SCN only under a secondary portal compartment, rather than the primary prescribed location, does not constitute due communication; where an adverse decision is contemplated the Proper Officer must afford an opportunity of hearing, and defective electronic service that prevents participation vitiates the ensuing adjudication, permitting writ intervention to set aside and remit for proper notice and hearing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic Credit Ledger blocking permitted only up to ITC actually available; negative balances and extra statutory recovery are impermissible.
    Rule 86A may be invoked only where input tax credit is actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the blocking order; the power permits disallowing debit equivalent to such available credit as a temporary preventive measure and does not authorize creation of negative ledger balances or serve as a recovery provision. Excess blocking beyond the ECL balance is ultra vires and recovery must proceed under the Act's substantive provisions.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessments under section 153A permit full reassessment for abated years but limit reopened completed years to incriminating search material.
    Section 153A's assessment power is search-linked: for abated years the AO may reassess total income afresh, but for completed/unabated years additions under section 153A are permissible only where specific incriminating material relating to that year is found during the search; absent such material, disturbance of a completed assessment must proceed, if at all, under sections 147-148 subject to their conditions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs appeals: High Court writs are generally restrained where a statutory High Court remedy exists and limitation lapsed.
    Where a statute provides a remedy to the High Court itself, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ intervention under Article 226 to avoid bypassing the statutory machinery; a litigant who has by his own default allowed the statutory limitation for a reference or appeal to lapse cannot ordinarily rely on Article 226 to cure that lapse, and claims of tribunal non consideration demand clear, specific, verified pleadings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Share buybacks and GST: expenses tied to buybacks are not eligible for ITC, and common ITC must be reversed.
    The authority held that shares are "securities" excluded from "goods" and "services," but section 17(3) and the Chapter V rules treat "transactions in securities" as part of the "value of exempt supply" for ITC apportionment; therefore GST paid on expenses directly related to a share buyback is not eligible as ITC under section 16(1), and common ITC attributable to both taxable operations and the buyback must be reversed using the prescribed deeming values.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mutual fund redemptions require proportionate ITC reversal under GST deeming provision; valuation set at 1% of sale value.
    A statutory deeming provision includes transactions in securities within the value of exempt supply for ITC apportionment; the Explanation to the input tax credit rules fixes the value of a security at 1% of its sale value, and redemption of mutual fund units is treated as a sale for this limited valuation purpose, requiring proportionate ITC reversal where common inputs serve both taxable operations and such investment transactions.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST extended-period proceedings require show cause notices to allege and disclose fraud or wilful misstatement.
    Extended limitation under GST is available only where the tax shortfall is "by reason of" fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; these are jurisdictional facts. Show cause notices must allege such conduct and disclose the material basis for that inference, and must specify proposed amounts without language of final determination. Invocation of extended limitation without these ingredients vitiates proceedings and precludes remand; authorities may pursue recovery under the normal limitation where applicable.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Benami property orders grounded on a recalled precedent must be re-adjudicated without treating that precedent as binding.
    The Tribunal held that where an adjudicatory order under the PBPTA is substantially founded on a Supreme Court judgment that has been recalled on review, that order cannot stand; the correct remedial course is to set aside and remit for de novo adjudication so the Adjudicating Authority may re-examine evidence and apply the law without treating the recalled Ganpati Dealcom decision as binding on the question of the amendments' temporal applicability.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Transition of cess credits: abolished cess balances are dead credits, not eligible for GST transition or cash refunds.
    Unutilised Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess balances whose utilisation was limited to the same cess and whose levies were abolished became dead CENVAT credits; they were not eligible for transition under the exhaustive list in Section 140 and its Explanations, and Section 142(3) only prescribes payment in cash where refund is otherwise due under existing law, not a new substantive right to refund or a means to evade pre GST limitation.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    Bank account freezes: limited temporary freezes permitted on reasonable suspicion, with strict notice, review and three month cap.
    A narrow implied power exists for banks to impose a temporary debit freeze without prior notice when there are reasonable grounds to suspect use of an account for money laundering or cyber fraud; this power must be exercised with same day communication to the accountholder, mandatory intimation to investigative authorities with proof, a one week window for accountholder explanation and bank decision, and a maximum three month continuation absent directions from competent authorities, after which the freeze must be lifted and access to the credit balance restored.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 143(2) notices not following CBDT formats invalidate ensuing scrutiny assessments; computer generation does not cure the defect.
    A scrutiny notice that does not conform to CBDT-prescribed formats-specifically by failing to specify whether selection is for limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny-is not a valid jurisdictional notice; non compliance with the binding CBDT Instruction vitiates the Assessing Officer's authority and renders any consequent scrutiny assessment void ab initio. Computer generation of the notice does not cure the defect. A pure legal challenge to such notice validity may be admitted at the appellate stage where no new facts are required.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported petroleum product: partial testing and non categorical reports cannot sustain classification as high speed diesel under tariff rules.
    Classification requires evidence addressing all IS 1460:2005 parameters or, where full conformity is lacking, a Rule 4 "most akin" analysis showing closest resemblance among candidate headings based on reliable, reasoned laboratory results and expert opinion; partial testing or non categorical reports do not suffice to support penal or confiscatory measures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leases with no purchase option and retained lessor title remain operating leases, not interest-bearing financings.
    Where aircraft lease documentation preserves legal title in the lessor, imposes a return obligation without any purchase option or residual-payment mechanism, and regulatory treatment aligns with operating-lease norms, the arrangement constitutes an operating lease; absent an enforceable transfer of ownership to the lessee at term end, lease rentals cannot be re-characterised as interest for treaty purposes merely because of lease tenure or finance-like pricing.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA complaints: BNSS imposes mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, affecting cognizance and arrest powers in money laundering cases.
    PMLA complaints are now governed by the general complaint-cognizance framework and, for complaints filed after BNSS commencement, by the corresponding BNSS provisions; the BNSS proviso requiring that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is mandatory, and failure to provide that opportunity invalidates the cognizance order. A scheduled predicate offence is a condition precedent to the existence of proceeds of crime and hence to PMLA liability, and once cognizance is taken, enforcement agencies' unilateral arrest powers against named accused are curtailed pending court-authorised custody.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: treaty text treats rental income as taxable in the lessor's residence when aircraft form part of international traffic.
    Whether leased aircraft create a fixed place Permanent Establishment depends on the disposal test: operational control and the right to use and conduct business from the place must vest in the enterprise; mere ownership and protective inspection or repossession rights do not suffice. Profit attribution to any alleged PE requires a FAR based arm's length analysis under Article 7(2), and Article 8(1)'s express inclusion of "operation or rental" covers rental income from aircraft forming part of a fleet used in international traffic, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: MLI PPT not applicable without section 90(1) notification; operating leases and Article 8(1) allocate rental tax to Ireland.
    The Tribunal ruled that Articles 6-7 of the MLI cannot be applied against the India-Ireland DTAA without a specific section 90(1) notification; alternatively, the Revenue failed to show PPT-based abuse. Contractual and regulatory analysis classified the transactions as operating leases; no fixed place PE existed in India; and Article 8(1) allocates taxing rights on rental of aircraft in international traffic to Ireland.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    E-way bill expiry alone cannot prove intent to evade tax; penalties require material indicating actual evasion.
    Expiry or non-generation of an e-way bill, by itself, does not establish intent to evade tax; penal action for movement in contravention requires material indicating diversion, mis-declaration or other indicia of tax risk. Where genuine invoices, correct particulars and evidence explaining delay exist and any fresh e-way bill is produced prior to final orders, authorities must record reasoned findings on intent; absent such material, detention, seizure and confiscation regime cannot be sustained and such misapplication is reviewable on certiorari.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA bail in GST-ITC syndicate case: High Court upholds arrest validity and denies bail under twin conditions.
    The High Court held the PMLA arrest valid because the authorised officer recorded written reasons to believe and furnished written grounds of arrest; it found prima facie involvement in money laundering from corroborated banking, corporate and recorded-statement evidence establishing foundational facts of proceeds of crime; the statutory presumption applied and shifted the burden to the accused; and the mandatory twin bail conditions were not satisfied given the alleged magnitude, sophistication and continuing nature of the GST-ITC fraud, so regular bail was refused.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Wheel loaders classification: tribunal finds front end shovel loaders heading applies; no penalties without mala fide intent.
    Self propelled wheeled machines with front mounted buckets are classifiable under TI 8429 5100 as front end shovel loaders regardless of mining use; invocation of the extended period u/s 28(4) requires evidence of collusion, wilful mis statement or suppression with intent to evade duty, and long standing departmental acceptance plus full disclosure negates mala fides; misclassification or wrong exemption claim alone does not justify confiscation u/s 111(m) or penalties u/ss 114A/114AA without proof of knowingly false description or fraudulent conduct.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Income tax revisional jurisdiction: if AO investigated, PCIT must decide merits or record specific investigative failure, not remand.
    Where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, the revisional authority cannot remand the assessment on a generic claim of inadequate enquiry; it must either record an abject failure to investigate with specific findings or decide the issue on merits in the revisional order and demonstrate error and prejudice.

    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