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 288 "Other amendments" 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 288 Other amendments

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 288 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out a list of specific situations in which an Assessing Officer may amend past assessments within prescribed time limits and subject to conditions. It affects taxpayers (partners, members of AOP/BOI, companies, transferors, assessees claiming foreign income deductions or TDS credits, patentees) and the tax department (Assessing Officers, Transfer Pricing Officers). Effective dates or decision dates: "From the end of the financial year" or "from the end of the year" as specified in each table entry (exact effective dates tied to triggering events are stated per row).

      Background & Scope

      Clause 288 (Other amendments) interacts with section 287(8) (limitation), sections 35, 67-71 (capital gains), sections 78 (stamp duty valuation), 111-115 (carry forward and set off provisions), section 144 (deduction for income received in foreign exchange), section 270(1) (intimations), section 279 (recomputation), section 166 and 275 (transfer pricing), Chapter XIX-B (TDS), and the Patents Act, 1970. The clause supplies a table enumerating specific actions an Assessing Officer may take, the conditions triggering those actions, and the time from which the four-year period is reckoned. Definitions: Not stated in the document beyond cross-references to statutory sections.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 288 authorises the Assessing Officer to effect amendments or recomputations in completed assessments in a limited set of circumstances enumerated in a table. Coverage includes: adjustment of partner's income when firm remuneration is found non-deductible u/s 35(f); inclusion or correction of a member's share of AOP/BOI income; recomputation of succeeding years' income where loss/depreciation is recomputed u/s 279; recomputation of transferor company income where capital gains treatment arises u/ss 67/70/71; exclusion of capital gains u/s 89 where reinvestment/acquisition occurs; allowance of deduction u/s 144 where foreign receipts are brought into India; credit for foreign tax paid after dispute settlement; revision of capital gain computation where stamp duty valuation is revised; recomputation where compensation is reduced by judicial or other authority; disallowance following patent revocation under the Patents Act; and correction of TDS credit allocation where TDS was deducted in a subsequent year. The provision also addresses transfer pricing recomputations u/s 166 (see end of the Clause).

      Interpretation

      The legislative design is remedial and limited: the power to amend is constrained to specific factual triggers rather than a general power of revision. Timelines are tied to concrete events (end of the financial year in which the subsequent order was passed; end of the year in which a conversion/cessation occurs; three-month windows for TP recomputation). The text indicates Parliament's intent to permit retrospective alignment of assessments where downstream developments (court orders, reassessments, valuation revisions, patent revocation, settlement of foreign tax disputes) alter the factual or legal basis of earlier assessments. The provision repeatedly applies the procedural safeguards of section 287 "so far as may be" to the listed amendments.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Explicit provisos include time-limits: generally within four years referred to in section 287(8) reckoned from specified events for each row. For the transfer pricing recomputation (serial No.12 in this version), there is an exception in timing-three months from the end of the month in which the assessment for the relevant tax year is completed; if not made within such three months, an alternate three-month window runs from the end of the month in which the assessment or intimation is made. The Bill notes that the four-year period does not apply to serial number 12. No other general provisos or monetary thresholds are provided in the text.

      Illustrations

      • Partner remuneration: A firm's assessment is later amended to disallow a partner's remuneration u/s 35(f). The Assessing Officer may amend the partner's completed assessment to reduce the partner's claimed income correspondingly; the time limit runs from the end of the financial year in which the firm's subsequent order was passed.
      • Recomputation following depreciation change: An assessee's depreciation for year N is recomputed u/s 279; the Assessing Officer may recompute and amend the assessee's total income for years M+1 (succeeding years where loss/depreciation was carried forward) from the end of the financial year in which the section 279 order was passed.
      • Transfer pricing option: A Transfer Pricing Officer validates an option u/s 166(9) for the arm's length price for an international transaction for two subsequent years; the Assessing Officer must recompute the two consecutive years' incomes in conformity with the TPO's arm's length determination within the prescribed three-month window.

      Interplay

      The Clause cross-references numerous assessment, revision and recomputation provisions (sections 279, 287, 166, 165, 270, 275) and the Patents Act. It expressly subjects amendments to the procedural rules of section 287 "so far as may be" and signals interaction with Chapter XIX-B (TDS) and Chapter IX-B (specified territories for foreign tax credit). Potential procedural dependencies (for example, the effect of an order u/s 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) are incorporated as triggering events for amendment.

      Differences between (Document 1) Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and (Document 2) Clause 288 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      Summary of material differences and practical impact:

      • Reference to subsection numbers and cross-references: Document 1 (Act version) refers broadly to amendments under "this section or section 287 or 359 or 363 or 365 or 368 or 377 or 378" in several entries. Document 2 (Bill old version) contains largely the same cross-references but shows minor ordering and numeric differences (for example, in Serial No.1 Document 2 refers to section 35(f) whereas Document 1 refers to section 35(e)).
        • Practical impact: Change in the cited subsection of section 35 (from 35(f) to 35(e)) alters the substantive trigger for amendments relating to partner remuneration - which affects which deductions, if disallowed at firm level, can be adjusted in partner assessments. This is potentially significant for assessments involving partner remuneration allowances; taxpayers and authorities will need to apply the correct sub-clause.
      • Timing language for certain recomputations (Serial No.4): In Document 2 (Bill old version), the time for recomputation of the transferor company's total income is expressed as "From the end of the year- (i) in which the capital asset was converted or treated as stock-in trade; or (ii) in which the parent company or its nominees or, the holding company ceased to hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company." Document 1 (Act version) states "From the end of the financial year in which the order was passed in the case of the firm" for other entries and, for Serial No.4, "From the end of the financial year in which the order revising the value was passed..." and similar. There is slight variation in wording (year vs financial year) across entries.
        • Practical impact: The distinction between "year" and "financial year" can affect the limitation period reckoning. Clarity that the reckoning is from end of the financial year is important for time-bar considerations; any inconsistency may create interpretive disputes on when the four-year window starts.
      • Serial numbering and an added/modified serial (Serial No.12 in Bill): Document 2 (Bill old) contains a Serial No.12 expressly dealing with recomputation for two consecutive tax years following a Transfer Pricing Officer determination (references to section 166(6), section 275(5) and timings for section 165(7) and (8)). Document 1 (Act) appears to fold similar content into subsection (2) but formats it differently (it numbers up to 11 in the Table and places transfer-pricing recomputation in sub-section (2)).
        • Practical impact: Repositioning the transfer-pricing-specific provision from a table entry to a separate subsection (as in the Act) or leaving it as a table item (Bill) is largely drafting/structural but can affect ease of reference and potential interaction with other table items; functionally the substance appears similar though readers must ensure they apply the correct procedural timing as enacted.
      • Drafting differences on ordering and cross-references to procedural sections: The Bill and the Act versions show minor differences in the list of sections cited for consequential reductions/enhancements (e.g., Document 2 lists section numbers including 356 in one place whereas Document 1 lists 287 and other numbers).
        • Practical impact: Any variance in the list of cross-referenced sections may expand or narrow the instances in which the Assessing Officer may amend earlier assessments. Stakeholders need to map which of the cited sections in each version actually exist and apply; inconsistency may cause interpretive work and potential disputes.
      • Literal phrasing and punctuation: Several entries differ in punctuation, ordering of clauses and in the phrasing of conditions (for example, Document 2 often uses dashes and parentheses differently). These are drafting-level changes rather than clear substantive shifts.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive/clarificatory; however, precise punctuation or connective language in tax statutes can affect interpretation in edge cases, so practitioners should rely on the enacted (Act) text for authoritative application.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers with inter-party allocations (partners, AOP/BOI members), carry forwards for losses/depreciation, foreign income or foreign tax credits, patents, and those involved in compulsory acquisition or government/RBI price approvals face targeted reassessment risk when downstream orders or conversions occur. Transfer pricing adjustments validated by a TPO can trigger immediate recomputations for two subsequent years within short procedural windows.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text requires documentary triggers (orders, reassessments, settlement evidence, TDS payment evidence, undertakings). Taxpayers should preserve and be ready to produce evidence of settlement of foreign tax disputes, court/tribunal orders reducing compensation, RBI approvals for repatriation, patent controller/high court orders, and TDS payment records. The Bill prescribes prescribed forms for certain applications (TDS credit reallocation), but the form details are "Not stated in the document."

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 288 enumerates specific, limited circumstances in which an Assessing Officer may amend completed assessments, tying the limitation period to concrete triggering events.
      • Transfer pricing recomputation for two consecutive tax years is given a distinct procedural timeline (three months) and is excepted from the four-year limitation in this version of the Bill.
      • Triggers include reassessment orders, recomputation u/s 279, judicial or executive revisions of compensation/valuations, patent revocation, and settlement of foreign tax disputes.
      • The provision emphasises documentary triggers and procedural cross-references (section 287, section 165, section 270), signalling administrative constraints and remedies.
      • Practical risk zones include partner remuneration disallowances, AOP/BOI share corrections, carry-forward adjustments, TDS credit reallocation, and TP determinations; timelines for amendment are often measured from the end of the financial year in which the triggering order was passed.
      • Specific procedural details (prescribed forms, fee, appeal remedies, or administrative guidance) are "Not stated in the document."
      • Where the Bill differs from later or alternate drafts (see Document 1), practitioners must monitor the final enacted text for changes in cross-references (e.g., section 35 sub-clauses), timing language, and structural placement of TP provisions.

      Full Text:

      Section 288 Other amendments

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax