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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 292 "Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search." 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 292 Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 292 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out a special procedure for assessment in cases of search or requisition, providing for block period assessment and abatement of parallel assessment proceedings. It matters to taxpayers subject to search or requisition, the income-tax department and practitioners handling search-assessment litigation. Effective date: "on or after the commencement of this Act" (as stated).

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 292 is placed in Part B entitled "Special procedure for assessment of search cases" of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It governs assessment of "income pertaining to the block period" where a search is initiated or requisition made. The clause interacts with provisions on references to the Board u/s 166 and cross-references section 293 (for computation/definition of block period income) and section 192 (for the tax rate to be applied). The Bill does not set forth definitions within Clause 292; any definitions of "block period," "search," "requisition," or "undisclosed income" are not stated in the clause itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 292(1) commands that irrespective of other provisions of the Act, where a search is initiated or requisition made on or after commencement, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total income of the block period as per this Chapter. The compulsion is comprehensive ("irrespective of any other provision"), indicating a special, paramount assessment route for search cases. Clause 292(6) provides that income other than undisclosed income of the tax year in which the last authorisation for search is executed should be assessed separately under other provisions of the Act. Clause 292(7) prescribes charging tax on the "total income pertaining to the block period" at the rate specified in section 192, irrespective of the tax year(s) to which such income pertains.

      Interpretation

      The text suggests legislative intent to centralise assessment dimensions arising out of searches into a block assessment calendar, to avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings for the same block-period income. The non-obstante language in clause (1) and (2) indicates a deliberate statutory priority to the Chapter's procedures over ordinary year-wise assessments for years within the block period. Clause (5)'s revival mechanism indicates an intent to preserve the department's recourse if a block assessment is annulled - abated proceedings are capable of revival upon annulment of the Chapter's proceedings. Overall, the clause reflects an intent to provide a distinct, consolidated regime for search-related assessments, to streamline assessment and to protect revenue via revival mechanisms.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 292(4) carves out cases where multiple searches/requisitions occur: if a subsequent search/requisition requires assessment under the Chapter, any pending assessment under the Chapter shall be completed first; then assessment for the subsequent search shall follow; if the remaining period for the subsequent assessment is less than three months, the period is to be extended to three months from the end of the month in which the earlier assessment was completed. This is a procedural proviso ensuring adequate time for downstream assessments. No other provisos (such as thresholds or exemptions) appear in the clause.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A search is initiated on 1 April 2025 covering a block period comprising financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24. Clause 292(1) requires the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the total income of that block period under the Chapter. Year-wise assessments pending for those years would abate under clause (2).
      • Example 2: If a notice for assessment under ordinary provisions was issued for a tax year within the block period after the date of search but before the order under the Chapter is made, clause (2) provides that such proceedings shall abate. Clause (5) contemplates revival if the Chapter's proceeding is later annulled in appeal.

      Interplay

      Clause 292 cross-refers to section 166 (references to the Board), section 293 (computation/definition of block period income) and section 192 (tax rate). It establishes that proceedings under other provisions of the Act for years in the block period abate and are deemed to have abated. Clause 6 preserves separate assessment of non-undisclosed income of the year of last search authorisation under general provisions. Clause 5 allows revival of abated proceedings should Chapter proceedings be annulled, indicating procedural interplay with appellate processes. The clause does not mention rules, forms, or timelines beyond the three-month extension in clause (4)(c).

      Differences between (Document 1) Section 292 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and (Document 2) Clause 292 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Title / Description: Document 1 is presented as "Section 292" of the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025 (heading: "Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search"). Document 2 is the "Clause 292" from the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (heading: "Assessment of income pertaining to the block period").
        • Practical impact: The enacted version uses the phrase "total undisclosed income" whereas the Bill used "total income" (or "total income pertaining to the block period" in sub-clause (7)). This narrows the focus in the enacted Act to undisclosed income, which has implications for scope of taxation and assessment - assessments under the enacted provision are directed at undisclosed income, not all income of the block period.
      • Reference to Parts/Chapters: The Bill (Document 2) repeatedly refers to "this Chapter." The enacted Section (Document 1) refers to "this Part."
        • Practical impact: Terminology change may reflect structural changes in the statute; substantively this is a drafting/organizational change rather than a change in substantive operation, but it may affect cross-references elsewhere in the Act.
      • Substantive Wording - Clause (1): Bill: "the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total income of the block period as per this Chapter." Enacted: "the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total undisclosed income of the block period as per provisions of this Part."
        • Practical impact: As above, enacted text confines assessment to undisclosed income rather than "total income," narrowing taxable base within the block assessment procedure.
      • Sub-clause (2)(b) in Enacted vs single (2) in Bill: The Bill has a single sub-section (2) stating abatement of pending proceedings. The enacted Section expands and divides subsection (2) into (2)(a) and (2)(b), and adds specific language about notices issued during the search-to-order period and abatement deemed on date of issue of such notice.
        • Practical impact: Enacted text gives more granular treatment to proceedings for tax years in the block period where notices were issued during the search window; it clarifies that such proceedings abate and are deemed to have abated on the date of issue of the notice. This may affect calculation of limitation or procedural rights when notices are issued during the pendency of a search-related assessment.
      • Sub-clause (3): Both documents have a provision about references u/s 166(1) or orders u/s 166(6) abating; the enacted version expressly states the reference/order along with proceedings shall abate "and shall be deemed to have abated on the date referred to in sub-section (2)." Bill says they "shall abate on the date referred to in sub-section (2)."
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting parity; enacted version echoes the deeming language used elsewhere.
      • Sub-clause numbering and (5) scope: Bill's clause (5) provides revival where any proceeding "initiated or completed under this Chapter has been annulled." Enacted clause (5) limits the overriding saving to "Irrespective of anything contained in this part or section 286," and links annulment of a proceeding initiated under this part or any order of assessment/reassessment made u/s 294(1)(c) with revival of abated proceedings.
        • Practical impact: Enacted text narrows the cross-over by specifically tying revival to annulment of assessment or order under specific section 294(1)(c) and by adding reference to section 286 and the Part; it also clarifies the administrative step (revival effective on receipt by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner). This changes procedural mechanics and the authority for revival.
      • Sub-clause (7) differences - cross-reference and terminology: Bill: "The total income pertaining to the block period, as referred to in section 293(5) shall be charged to tax at the rate specified in section 192." Enacted: "The total undisclosed income relating to the block period, as referred to in section 293(7) shall be charged to tax at the rate specified in section 192 as income of the block period."
        • Practical impact: Enacted text both changes the cross-reference (s.293(7) vs s.293(5)) and substitutes "total undisclosed income" for "total income," and expressly states it is "as income of the block period." This aligns with the enacted focus on undisclosed income and may alter rate application depending on how section 293 and section 192 are structured in the final Act. Cross-reference changes could affect interpretive linkages with section 293.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor differences in wording (e.g., "Irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" in the Bill vs "Irrespective of anything contained in this part or section 286" in enacted text).
        • Practical impact: Enacted limitation to "this part or section 286" could restrict the broadness of non-obstante clause compared to the Bill's broader sweep; this may change how other provisions operate vis-`a-vis block assessment provisions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers carrying on activity subject to a search should expect consolidated block assessment procedures and likely abatement of concurrent year-wise assessments. There is an increased risk of comprehensive assessment of all block period income under the Chapter regime rather than piecemeal year-wise scrutiny.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause implies the need to preserve documentation relevant to the entire block period; the statutory abatement of year-wise proceedings means evidence must support positions across years. While the clause does not prescribe specific records, the practical consequence is wide-ranging documentary preservation to defend aggregate assessments.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill centralises assessment for search/requisition cases into a block assessment procedure overriding ordinary year-wise assessments.
      • Pending assessments for tax years within the block period abate upon initiation of search or requisition.
      • Multiple searches trigger a sequential completion rule; time for subsequent assessments is extended to a minimum three months if necessary.
      • Abated proceedings may revive if the Chapter's proceedings are annulled on appeal or other legal proceedings.
      • Income other than undisclosed income for the year of last authorisation is to be assessed separately under ordinary provisions.
      • Tax on block period income is to be charged at the rate in section 192, irrespective of year-wise incidence.
      • Clause is drafted to prioritise department's consolidated assessment approach; taxpayers should plan comprehensive record retention for the block period.

      Full Text:

      Section 292 Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax