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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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