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 293 "Computation of total undisclosed income of block period." 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 293 Computation of total undisclosed income of block period.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 293 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes rules for computation of the "total income of the block period" in search cases. It sets out categories of income to be aggregated or excluded, the basis of determination from books or material seized or available to the Assessing Officer, special treatment for international/specified domestic transactions, firm-level adjustments, and carry-forward of losses. It matters to taxpayers subject to searches or requisitions, assessing authorities, and tax practitioners. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 293 operates under the draft Income Tax Bill, 2025 and references section 292(1) (definition of block period), and multiple provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (including sections 143, 144, 147, 153A, 153C, 270, 271, 279, 166, 33(11) etc. mentioned elsewhere). The provision covers computation of "total income" for the block period arising in the context of search, survey or requisition proceedings under the Bill. Definitions or explanations provided within the clause include temporal delineations for book-based computations (three periods) and a list of sources on which undisclosed income may be computed. No separate glossary of defined terms is included in the clause itself. Any broader definition of "block period" or other terms: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 293(1) prescribes that total income of the block period is an aggregate of: (a) undisclosed income declared in returns u/s 294; (b) incomes assessed earlier under specified sections (270(10), 271, 279, 153A, 153C) prior to search/requisition; (c) incomes declared in returns u/s 263 or responses to notices u/s 268(1) or 280 (not covered by (a) or (b)); (d) incomes determined by reference to books/entries for three specified temporal scenarios; and (e) undisclosed income determined by AO under sub-section (2). Clause (2) prescribes the basis of AO computation as (a) evidence from search/survey/requisition and (b) other material available or coming to AO's notice during proceedings. Clause (3) excludes certain international/specified domestic transactions from block computation if they pertain to the short inter-authorisation period and arise from search/requisition or book entries. Clause (4) provides firm-specific computation rules and cross-application of sections 102-105 and 166 (with temporal adjustments). Clause (5) provides that tax u/s 292(7) is charged on total income of the block period as reduced by specified sub-items. Clause (6) directs that certain loss situations shall be ignored for the purposes of subsections (1) and (5). Clauses (7)-(8) restrain set-off of brought-forward losses and allow carry-forward after the block period. The clause spans aggregation, exclusion, computation methodology, and loss treatment.

      Interpretation

      The text indicates legislative intent to assemble a composite tax base for the block period from declared undisclosed amounts, incomes already assessed/declared prior to search, and incomes determinable from books. It distinguishes incomes that must be excluded from block assessment (notably certain transfer-pricing-type transactions for a restricted period) and contemplates AO determination from both physical evidence and other information. The inclusion of both assessed returns and book-based determinations suggests an intent to capture both previously subjected incomes and newly identified amounts. The directive to ignore losses in specified circumstances reflects a policy to prevent negative block-period tax bases. Any legislative history or rationale beyond the clause: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The key carve-outs are in sub-section (3) for international/specifed domestic transactions that fall within the short period (1 April of the tax year in which last authorisation was executed to the execution date) and are required to be determined from search/requisition/books/other material - such items must be excluded from block-period computation and dealt with under other assessment provisions. Sub-section (6) lists loss conditions that must be ignored when computing the total income and tax payable. Any other provisos: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: If an assessee files a return u/s 294 declaring undisclosed income for a tax year within the block period, that declared undisclosed income is aggregated under clause (1)(a).
      • Example 2: If, during search, books show entries for transactions in the period from 1st April of the tax year up to the day before search, the AO may determine income for that period based on those entries under clause (1)(d)(ii).
      • Example 3: If an international transaction occurring between 1st April and the execution date of the last authorisation is detected from requisitioned documents, that income must be excluded from the block-period computation and assessed under other provisions per clause (3).

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references multiple assessment and procedural provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Bill itself: notably sections concerning prior assessments (270, 271, 279, 143, 144, 147, 153A/153C), procedure for declarations (section 294), specified domestic/international transaction provisions (section 166), and carry-forward/set-off provisions (Chapter VII and section 33(11)). The clause directs certain matters (transfer-pricing-type incomes) out of block assessment into ordinary assessment channels, indicating a partitioned regime. Specific rules, notifications or circulars implementing procedural aspects are not contained in the clause. Any cross-notification/rule reference beyond these sections: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Structure and terminology: The Act version (Document 1) is titled "Computation of total undisclosed income of block period" and frames the computation in terms of "total undisclosed income." The Bill old version (Document 2) is titled "Computation of total income of block period" and framed around "total income."

        Practical impact: Shifting the statutory label from "total income" to "total undisclosed income" narrows the statutory focus in the Act text to only undisclosed amounts, which may affect how items admitted or declared are treated in computation and consequential tax charging. It signals an explicit legislative intent to distinguish declared/assessed income from the undisclosed component in block assessments.

      • Placement and sequencing of previously assessed/declared incomes: In the Bill (Doc 2) sub-section (1) enumerates a mix of declared undisclosed income, incomes assessed previously under certain sections, returned incomes in response to notices, and incomes determined from books (clauses (a)-(e)). The Act (Doc 1) simplifies subsection (1) into (a) undisclosed income declared u/s 294 and (b) undisclosed income determined by Assessing Officer under sub-section (4). The Act moves much of the Bill's list into exclusions in subsection (2).

        Practical impact:The Act's reorganisation clarifies that the "total undisclosed income" comprises two components - declared and AO-determined - while specifying many previously listed categories as exclusions. This reordering makes the scope of block assessment narrower and more precise for practitioners calculating the taxable base.

      • Exclusions/ignored items: The Bill (Doc 2) contains explicit clauses (1)(b) and (c) listing incomes assessed under specified sections prior to the search and incomes declared in response to certain notices. It also has a separate sub-section (6) listing categories to be ignored when they are losses. The Act (Doc 1) places many of these under subsection (2) as items that "shall not be included" in total undisclosed income, and expands clause (2)(c) into three detailed subclauses regarding computation based on books for different periods. The Act also adds clause (2)(d) excluding specified incomes referred in many sections (207(8), 216, 393(1), 115A(5), 115G, 194P(1)).

        Practical impact:The Act provides a more comprehensive exclusion list (including specific sections and categories of incomes) and formalises the treatment of book-based computations. This clarity reduces ambiguity about what must be removed from the block undisclosed computation and may reduce litigation on inclusion of certain incomes (e.g., specified incomes under cited sections).

      • Computation basis and AO powers: Both texts provide that AO computes undisclosed income based on evidence from search/survey/requisition and other material. The Act places this in subsection (4), while the Bill has it as subsection (2). The Act also expressly allows the AO under subsection (3) to recompute where the assessee computed income under the book-based exclusions and AO believes part is undisclosed.

        Practical impact:The Act explicitly empowers reassessment/recomputation by the AO of book-based declared incomes that are partly undisclosed, creating clearer statutory authority for AOs to adjust assessee-computed figures within the block assessment process.

      • Treatment of international/specified domestic transactions (transfer-pricing-type items): The Bill (Doc 2) places the non-consideration rule in subsection (3) with a three-part condition list (a) and (b)(i)-(iii). The Act (Doc 1) places a similar rule in subsection (5) but phrases it negatively: if such income pertains to specified shorter period and arises from search/requisition or books entries, then irrespective of section 292(6) (i) such income shall not be considered for block undisclosed computation; (ii) it shall be considered in assessment under other provisions.

        Practical impact:Both texts exclude certain international/domestic specified transactions from block computation for a limited period, but the Act's drafting emphasises "irrespective of provisions of section 292(6)" and separates the consequences into two sub-clauses, perhaps strengthening its non-application to block undisclosed income and directing such matters to regular assessment routes.

      • Losses and ignored losses: The Bill (Doc 2) explicitly lists (in sub-section (6)) various situations where losses should be ignored in computation. The Act (Doc 1) omits that specific "ignored losses" list but retains a prohibition on setting off brought-forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation against undisclosed income in sub-section (8), and provides carrying forward in sub-section (9).

        Practical impact: The Act's omission of an explicit "ignored losses" clause may lead to interpretive questions about loss treatment in other contexts, but the Act preserves the principal restriction on setting off prior losses against block undisclosed income while allowing carry-forward post-block period. Practitioners must note the change in expressness.

      • Tax charging clause: The Bill (Doc 2) in sub-section (5) states the tax u/s 292(7) shall be charged on the total income of the block period as reduced by listed incomes. The Act (Doc 1) in sub-section (7) simply says tax referred to in section 292(7) shall be charged on the total undisclosed income determined in the manner specified in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3).

        Practical impact:The Act's language narrows the tax base to total undisclosed income as defined by the Act rather than a residual "total income" reduced by certain items; this is a substantive reorientation that benefits taxpayers by limiting the charge to undisclosed components only.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify and segregate declared undisclosed income, incomes previously assessed or returned before search, and book-based incomes for the three temporal windows to determine block-period exposure. Particular care is required to identify international/specified domestic transactions that may be carved out and assessed separately.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintenance of books and contemporaneous documents for the three delineated periods is critical to support income determinations made on the basis of entries "maintained in the normal course." Copies of prior assessments, responses to notices and declarations u/s 294 will be needed to establish exclusions. Any guidance on formats or timelines for records: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 293 constructs the block-period tax base as an aggregate of declared undisclosed income, certain previously assessed/declared incomes, and incomes determinable from books or AO material.
      • It prescribes detailed temporal windows for book-based determinations (completed tax years, period up to day before search, and period up to execution of last authorisation).
      • International and specified domestic transactions pertaining to the short inter-authorisation period are to be excluded from block computation and assessed separately.
      • Certain loss situations are to be ignored for the purpose of computing total income and tax in the block assessment, preventing negative computation outcomes.
      • Brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against undisclosed/block income but may be carried forward for use after the block period.
      • The AO's basis for computation includes both physical evidence from search/survey/requisition and any other material available to or coming to the AO's notice.
      • Many operational details (effective date, procedural forms, timelines, and administrative guidance) are not stated in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 293 Computation of total undisclosed income of block period

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax