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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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