Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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