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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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