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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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