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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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 294 "Procedure for block assessment." 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 294 Procedure for block assessment

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 294 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version): a proposed special procedure for block assessment in search/requisition cases. It matters because it prescribes the notice, return and consequential assessment procedure in high-risk search cases, affecting taxpayers subject to searches and the assessing authority. Who is affected: taxpayers subject to search/ requisition and the Income-tax Department. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 294, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Context: procedure to be followed where a search has been initiated or requisition made. Coverage: issuance of notice requiring a return for the block period, treatment of such return, procedural cross-references for assessment and penalties, treatment of seized/requisitioned assets, and prior approval before issuing notice. Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 294 addresses situations where a search is initiated or requisition made. The Assessing Officer (AO) must issue a notice requiring the person to furnish, within the period specified (not exceeding sixty days), a return "in the form and verified in the manner, as prescribed," setting forth the total income, including undisclosed income, for the block period. The return is to be treated as if furnished u/s 263 and thereafter a notice u/s 270(8) shall be issued. Returns furnished beyond the period are declared not to be returns u/s 259. No notice u/s 280 is required. A person who furnishes such return is not entitled to file a revised return.
      • The AO shall proceed to determine the total income including the undisclosed income for the block period per section 293, and specified provisions (sections 268, 270(8), 270(10), 271, 276, 287 and 288) shall, so far as may be, apply. On such determination, the AO shall pass an order of assessment or reassessment and determine tax payable, with the proviso that section 275 shall not apply; additionally, where the order is made pursuant to section 295, the block period for that assessment shall be the same as that determined in respect of the person in whose case the search was initiated. Assets seized u/s 247 or requisitioned u/s 248 shall be dealt with per section 250. Section 270(1) shall not apply to the return furnished under this section. Prior approval of senior specified officers is required before issuing the notice.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the text: to create a distinct, expedited procedure for block assessment following searches/requisitions, by compelling a targeted return within a strict timeframe, limiting revision rights, and specifying which procedural and penal provisions apply. The treatment of such returns "as if" u/s 263 suggests an intent to subject such returns to a particular return regime while ensuring downstream procedure u/s 270(8). The prohibition on revision and on section 270(1) suggests an intent to fix the record and limit post-disclosure tinkering. The requirement for prior supervisory approval indicates a policy of internal checks before initiating the block return procedure.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions in the Clause: (i) Section 275 does not apply to orders passed under this Clause; (ii) where assessment/reassessment is u/s 295, block period alignment rule applies (Bill only); (iii) returns filed after the specified period are not deemed returns u/s 259; (iv) section 270(1) does not apply to such returns. Additional procedural limitations: no revised return permitted; no section 280 notice required. Any thresholds, time limits beyond the sixty-day specification: Not stated in the document beyond the sixty-day maximum and the immediate treatment described.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A search of A's premises leads the AO to issue a clause 294 notice requiring a return within sixty days setting out A's total income including undisclosed income for the block period; A files the return on day 45. The AO treats the return as if u/s 263 and issues notice u/s 270(8) and proceeds under the specified sections to determine tax. (Consistent with text.)
      • Example 2: B files a return in response to a clause 294 notice after the sixty-day period. Under the Clause, that late return "shall not be deemed to be a return u/s 259" (textual provision), and thus would be excluded from the returns regime referenced. (Consistent with text.)
      • Example 3: C is assessed pursuant to section 295 as part of connected proceedings initiated by a search in D's case; the AO sets the block period for C to be the same as for D. (Consistent with clause (c)(ii) in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other sections mentioned: the Clause expressly imports section 263 procedures for deeming the return, requires issuance of notice u/s 270(8), and prescribes that several other specified sections "shall, so far as may be, apply" (268, 270(8), 270(10), 271, 276, 287, 288). The Clause excludes application of section 275 to resulting orders and excludes section 270(1) from application to the special return. The Clause further references sections 247, 248 and 250 for treatment of seized/requisitioned assets and section 295 for block-period alignment. Any rules, notifications or circulars beyond these sections: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact of each change

      • Content of the return required: The Bill (Clause 294 - Old Version) requires the assessee to furnish "a return ... setting forth his total income, including the undisclosed income, for the block period." The Act (Section 294) requires a return "setting forth his undisclosed income, for the block period."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's wording would have required a composite disclosure of total income plus undisclosed income, potentially generating fuller self-contained disclosures for assessment. The Act narrows the disclosure requirement to undisclosed income only, which may limit the scope of what the assessee must put on record via the special return and could shift emphasis to determination of undisclosed amounts by the AO using other material.
      • Provision for extension (30 days) and conditional grounds: The Act contains an express sub-clause permitting a further extension of 30 days where four specific conditions (A-D) are satisfied (relating to due date not having expired, audit liability u/s 63, accounts not audited, and written request for extension to get accounts audited). The Bill does not contain this extension provision.
        • Practical impact: The Act's explicit extension mechanism gives assessees an administrative safeguard to arrange an audit and furnish audited accounts, reducing risk of procedural non-compliance. The absence of this in the Bill would have imposed a stricter sixty-day deadline with no specified statutory extension, increasing compliance pressure and potential disputes over timeliness.
      • Cross-references to other sections (applicable provisions): The Bill lists the provisions to be applied "so far as may be" as sections 268, 270(8), 270(10), 271, 276, 287 and 288. The Act lists sections 268, 270(8), 270(10), 271, 276, 277 and 278.
        • Practical impact: Different cross-references change which penalty, prosecution or procedural provisions are available. The Bill's inclusion of sections 287 and 288 (and omission of 277/278) would have applied different penal/process provisions than the Act's choice of 277 and 278. This affects potential penalties, prosecution exposure, and consequential procedural steps; taxpayers and authorities will need to re-evaluate the risk/relief profile as per the final list.
      • Returns filed beyond the time allowed - cross-reference discrepancy: The Bill states that any return beyond the period "shall not be deemed to be a return u/s 259" (anomalous reference). The Act states that any return beyond the period "shall not be deemed to be a return u/s 263."
        • Practical impact:The Bill appears to contain an incorrect cross-reference (section 259) which would create ambiguity and possible challenge; the Act corrects this to section 263. The correct cross-reference determines which statutory regime governs validity of late returns in search/block cases, hence critical to procedural consequences.
      • Additional provision in Bill regarding block period alignment where order pursuant to section 295: The Bill contains an additional sub-clause (c)(ii) providing that where assessment/reassessment is made pursuant to section 295, "the block period for such assessment or reassessment shall be the same as that determined in respect of the person in whose case search was initiated..." The Act lacks an equivalent clause.
        • Practical impact:The Bill's clause would have ensured synchronized block periods across related assessments triggered by the same search, clarifying temporal reach of linked proceedings. Its omission in the Act leaves uncertainty whether block periods in consequential proceedings automatically mirror the original searched person's block period; this may affect limitations and taxable periods in follow-on assessments.
      • Minor language and chapter/part references: The Bill refers to "as prescribed" and to proceedings "under this Chapter"; the Act uses "as may be prescribed" and "under this part."
        • Practical impact: Largely stylistic; however, "as may be prescribed" can be read as preserved legislative discretion. The chapter/part wording difference is terminological and unlikely to have substantive legal effect but should be noted for drafting clarity.
      • Common features preserved: Both versions require prior approval of an Additional Commissioner/Additional Director/Joint Commissioner/Joint Director before issuance of the notice; both disallow revision of a return filed under the provision; both state no notice u/s 280 is required for proceeding.
        • Practical impact: These consistent elements preserve administrative checks and constrain assessee's ability to revise disclosures made under the special procedure.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance risks: Filing within the sixty-day window is mandatory; late filings are expressly rendered not to be returns under the cross-referenced provision (section 259 in the Bill), exposing taxpayers to adverse procedural consequences. The inability to file revised returns increases the stakes of initial disclosure entries.
      • Record-keeping: Taxpayers facing search/requisition should be prepared to compile and submit a full return of total income and undisclosed income for the block period within sixty days, along with supporting documents. Maintenance of contemporaneous books and auditable records will be crucial.
      • Audit/assessment strategy: The AO will apply the specified sections to determine undisclosed income, and the exclusion of section 275 indicates penalties under that section will not attach to these orders, though other penalties/prosecutions under the listed sections may apply.
      • Approval requirement: Prior approval by senior officers before issuing the notice imposes an internal control in the Department's process; taxpayers should monitor exercise of that supervisory check.
      • Interconnected assessments: Whether block periods of consequential assessments must align (per clause (c)(ii)) may affect limitation and evidence strategies in linked cases; practitioners should note the Bill's explicit alignment provision.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 294 prescribes a targeted return procedure in search/requisition cases with a strict sixty-day deadline and no right to revise the return.
      • The return is to be treated "as if" u/s 263 and triggers a notice u/s 270(8); section 270(1) does not apply.
      • Certain penal/procedural sections are specified to apply "so far as may be" (268, 270(8), 270(10), 271, 276, 287, 288), while section 275 is excluded.
      • Clause contains a special alignment rule for block periods where assessment follows section 295.
      • Seized or requisitioned assets are to be dealt with u/s 250; prior approval of senior officers is required before issuing the notice.
      • The Bill's reference to section 259 for late returns appears anomalous and would create ambiguity in application.
      • Practical compliance: rapid assembly of records, attention to timelines, and careful drafting of the initial return are essential.

      Full Text:

      Section 294 Procedure for block assessment

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax