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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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