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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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