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 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