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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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 298 "Levy of interest and penalty in certain cases." 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 298 Levy of interest and penalty in certain cases

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document compares two texts of Clause/Section 298 of the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025 concerning levy of interest and penalty in search cases. It matters because it prescribes interest, penalty rates, limitation and procedural safeguards that affect taxpayers subject to search-and-seizure assessments and the tax department. Who is affected: assessees subject to notices u/s 294(1)(a) and income-tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: references throughout to section 294(1)(a) and to penalty-imposing provisions including sections 244(2), 357, 362, 377 and various sections in Chapter/Part cited as 444, 450, 451 and either 452 or 453. Context: special procedure for assessment of search cases and consequences where the return called for is not furnished within prescribed time. Coverage: interest on tax determined in search assessments, imposition of penalty equal to 50% of tax leviable on undisclosed income, and limitation/ procedural safeguards for imposing penalty.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision prescribes two primary consequences where a return required u/s 294(1)(a) is not furnished within the notice period or not furnished at all: (i) simple interest at 1.5% per month (or part thereof) on the tax on undisclosed income determined u/s 294(1)(c) for the period from the day after expiry of the notice period until completion of assessment u/s 294(1)(c); and (ii) an administrative penalty equal to 50% of the tax leviable in respect of undisclosed income determined u/s 294(1)(c), which may be directed by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of specified proceedings. The section further sets conditions when penalty shall not be imposed for the block period (sub-section (3)), exceptions to that non-imposition (sub-section (4)), procedural safeguards and limitation rules for imposing penalty (sub-sections (5) to (8)), and a duty to send a copy of penalty orders to the Assessing Officer (sub-section (9)).

      Interpretation

      The provision targets cases where returns called for in search scenarios are not furnished, imposing financial consequences to incentivize prompt compliance and penalise concealment. The specified interest rate and flat 50% penalty on tax leviable indicate a punitive but formulaic approach. The presence of limitation rules, hearing requirements, approval thresholds and exclusion of certain periods suggest a balance between departmental enforcement and procedural safeguards. Further interpretive guidance or legislative debates are Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions in the text:

      • Sub-section (3) bars imposition of penalty under this section and certain other specified sections for the block period if four cumulative conditions are met: the person furnished the return u/s 294(1)(a); tax payable on that return has been paid (or money seized is offered to be adjusted against tax); evidence of tax paid accompanies the return; and no appeal is filed against the assessment of the portion of income shown in the return.
      • Sub-section (4) states the bar in sub-section (3) does not apply where undisclosed income determined exceeds the income shown in the return; in such cases penalty attaches only to the excess portion.
      • Sub-section (5)(a) mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty; (5)(b) requires higher-level approval where penalty exceeds Rs. 200,000; (5)(c)-(e) prescribe time limits linked to financial year end and appellate/revision outcomes for making penalty orders.
      • Sub-sections (6)-(8) provide for exclusion of specific periods (re-hearing time u/s 244(2); period of stay by court) in computing limitation and extensions to ensure minimum actionable windows (extend to 60 days or end of month as applicable).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A notice u/s 294(1)(a) required a return of undisclosed income; the assessee failed to file within the notice period. The Assessing Officer determines tax on undisclosed income u/s 294(1)(c). Interest at 1.5% of that tax is charged for each month or part-month from the day after the notice period until assessment completion. (No monetary figures provided in the document.)
      • Example 2: An assessee files a return u/s 294(1)(a) and pays tax, provides evidence of tax payment, and does not appeal the assessed portion shown in the return. Under sub-section (3) a penalty under this section shall not be imposed for the block period. If, however, the Assessing Officer determines undisclosed income in excess of the declared amount, penalty may be imposed on the excess as per sub-section (4).

      Interplay

      The section cross-refers to numerous other provisions (section 294(1), 244(2), 357, 362, 377 and sections in the 440s/450s). Specific interactions with Rules, Notifications, Circulars, or the substantive content of the cited sections are Not stated in the document. Therefore precise interplay and potential conflicts or supplementing procedural rules cannot be determined from the provided text alone.

      Differences Between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      • Terminology of the return called for: The Bill (old version) uses the phrase "return of total income as required under a notice u/s 294(1)(a)" while the Act version uses "return of undisclosed income as required under a notice u/s 294(1)(a)".
        • Practical impact: The change narrows or clarifies the subject of the return called for - from a general "total income" return to a return specifically of "undisclosed income". This may affect the scope of the obligation and subsequent tax/penalty calculations because the Act text ties the return explicitly to undisclosed income; however, the document does not state legislative intent or consequences beyond the text. (Legislative intent: Not stated in the document.)
      • Reference to the prosecuting part/chapter: The Bill refers to "in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter," whereas the Act substitutes "in the course of any proceedings under this Part."
        • Practical impact: This is an internal structural cross-reference. It could change the set of proceedings in which penalty may be directed if "Part" and "Chapter" have different statutory scopes elsewhere; the document does not state the contents or scope of the relevant Part/Chapter, so the practical effect cannot be fully determined from the text alone. (Interplay: Not stated in the document.)
      • Cross-reference in sub-section (3) to other penalty sections: The Bill lists sections 444(1), 450, 451 or 452; the Act lists 444(1), 450, 451 or 453.
        • Practical impact: This changes which other penalty provisions are brought into the non-imposition condition for the block period. If section 452 and 453 refer to different provisions, this could expand or contract the situations where penalty is barred. The document does not define sections 452 or 453, so the exact practical effect is not stated. (Relevant content of sections 452/453: Not stated in the document.)

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Failure to file the specified return u/s 294(1)(a) exposes the assessee to immediate interest at 1.5% per month on the tax determined on undisclosed income plus potential penalty equal to 50% of that tax. Even where a return is filed, if the Assessing Officer finds undisclosed income exceeding declared income, penalty applies to the excess.
      • Threshold and approvals: Where penalty exceeds Rs. 200,000, prior approval from senior officers is required before lower-ranked officers impose such penalty; this creates an internal control and possible administrative delay.
      • Limitation/procedural safeguards: Requirement of reasonable opportunity to be heard, and specific limitation computations (exclusions for re-hearing and judicial stay, minimum extension to 60 days and month-end rules) affect timing of penalty orders and may create windows for tactical response by the assessee. Exact procedural forms, timelines for submissions, and appellate mechanics are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping and evidence: The text requires evidence of tax paid to be furnished with the return to avail the bar under sub-section (3). Assessees should therefore maintain contemporaneous proof of payment and documentation supporting declared income in the return filed u/s 294(1)(a). The document does not prescribe specific documentary formats or forms. (Specific documentary requirements: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • The Act text narrows wording to "return of undisclosed income" versus the Bill's "return of total income", potentially narrowing the scope of the return required in search cases.
      • Interest is prescribed at 1.5% per month on tax on undisclosed income, payable for each month or part-month from default to assessment completion.
      • A penalty equal to 50% of tax leviable on undisclosed income can be directed in proceedings, subject to procedural safeguards and limitation rules.
      • Penalty will not be imposed for the block period if specified conditions (filing, tax payment, evidence, and no appeal against declared part) are met; excess undisclosed income remains penalizable.
      • Limitation includes exclusions (re-hearing, court stay) and mandated minimum actionable periods (extend to 60 days or month-end) to ensure opportunity for decision-making; higher-level approval required for penalties above Rs. 200,000.
      • Textual cross-reference changes (Chapter->Part; section 452->453) may alter scope of application; the document does not provide the content of those cross-referenced provisions, so implications are not fully determinable from the text alone.
      • Citation/corrigendum indicates a minor textual correction; no substantive legislative history or intent is included in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 298 Levy of interest and penalty in certain cases

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax