Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax