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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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