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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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