Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 301 "Interpretation." 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 301 Interpretation

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document is Clause 301 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Interpretation" within the Chapter on special procedure for assessment of search cases. It supplies definitions and scope for terms such as "block period", "requisition", "requisitioned items", "search", "seized items", "the last of the authorisations" and "undisclosed income". It matters because these definitions frame assessment, seizure and requisition proceedings u/ss 247-248 and related provisions; affected parties include taxpayers subject to search/requisition, authorised officers and the tax department.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 301 is situated in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, under the Chapter dealing with "Special procedure for assessment of search cases". It supplies interpretive definitions to be used "in this Chapter". The clause explicitly references sections 247 and 248 (search and requisition) for the operative processes it supports. The Clause provides definitions that govern temporal scope ("block period"), material objects subject to requisition/seizure ("requisitioned items", "seized items"), process milestones ("the last of the authorisations") and the core fiscal concept used in such proceedings ("undisclosed income").

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 301 provides definitional scope for terms used in the Chapter:

  • "block period": Aggregate of two components-(i) six tax years preceding the tax year in which the search was initiated or any requisition was made; and (ii) the period from 1 April of the tax year in which the search/requisition was made up to the date of execution of the last authorisation for such search/requisition.
  • "requisition": Requisition of books of account, other documents or any assets u/s 248.
  • "requisitioned items": Books of account, other documents or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing requisitioned u/s 248.
  • "search": A search initiated u/s 247.
  • "seized items": Books of account, other documents or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized u/s 247.
  • "the last of the authorisations": Deemed executed-(i) for search: on conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued, irrespective of whether any seizure is recorded; (ii) for requisition: on actual receipt of the books of account, documents or assets by the Authorised Officer.
  • "undisclosed income": Two limbs-(i) money, bullion, jewellery, virtual digital asset or other valuable article or thing or any expenditure or any income based on entries in books/documents/transactions representing wholly or partly income or property not disclosed for purposes of the Act in respect of the block period; or (ii) any expense, exemption, deduction or allowance claimed under the Act which is found to be incorrect, in respect of the block period.

Interpretation

The Clause employs temporal and material markers to delineate the ambit of "undisclosed income" and the period for which such income will be examined ("block period"). The first limb of "undisclosed income" focuses on tangible and intangible assets (including "virtual digital asset") and entries/transactions that reflect nondisclosure. The second limb separately addresses incorrect fiscal claims-expenses, exemptions, deductions or allowances-claimed under the Act. The inclusion of both tangible assets and accounting entries suggests a dual focus on physical seizure and documentary/book-entry analysis within the block period. The text signals that the last panchnama in relation to any person is determinative for the conclusion of a search, thus providing a concrete procedural milestone for the operation of time-bound rules linked to the block period.

Exceptions/Provisos

No express exceptions or provisos beyond the two-part structure of the "block period" and the two-limbed definition of "undisclosed income" are included within Clause 301. Specific carve-outs, thresholds or exclusions are Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A search initiated on 15 December of tax year Y (warrants executed for multiple persons) will have block period component (i) the six tax years preceding Y, and (ii) from 1 April of Y to the date recorded as conclusion in the last panchnama-this determines the period within which alleged undisclosed income is assessed.
  • Example 2: Books of account seized u/s 247 containing entries asserting certain expenses claimed as deductions for the block period could be treated as evidence of "undisclosed income" under limb (g)(i) or as an incorrect deduction under limb (g)(ii), depending on factual findings made during assessment.

Interplay

Clause 301 repeatedly cross-references sections 247 and 248 for the operative acts of search and requisition. The Clause also depends on "panchnama" as a procedural record to mark the conclusion of search operations. No other Rules, Notifications or Circulars are mentioned in Clause 301. Any application of this Clause in relation to other provisions of the Bill or the Act is Not stated in the document.

Differences between Clause 301 (Old Version) and Section 301 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Practical Impact

  • Scope marker/heading: The Bill (Clause 301) uses "In this Chapter"; the Act (Section 301) uses "For the purposes of this Part".
    • Practical impact: Terminology shift (Chapter vs Part) is largely stylistic but may reflect reorganisation of the statute; no substantive legal change is indicated in the texts provided.
  • Definitions added/omitted: The Bill contains explicit definitions of "requisitioned items" and "seized items" (books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles seized/requisitioned u/ss 247/248). The Act text omits these two separate definitions.
    • Practical impact: Omitting explicit labels for "seized items" and "requisitioned items" in the Act reduces immediate textual clarity about what the statute contemplates when referencing seized or requisitioned property. Procedure and evidential handling that depend on named categories may require reliance on the general description in other clauses or on rules/guidance; this increases potential interpretive work for assessors and advisers.
  • Placement and labelling of "the last of the authorisations": Both texts contain a provision deeming when "the last of the authorisations" is executed, with identical operative sub-clauses for search (conclusion as recorded in last panchnama) and requisition (actual receipt). The Bill lists this at (f) while the Act lists similar text at (d).
    • Practical impact: No substantive change; re-lettering only affects cross-references in other sections and transitional drafting adjustments.
  • "Undisclosed income" formulation: The Bill sets out "undisclosed income" in a two-part structure (g)(i) and (g)(ii): (i) items/entries/transactions representing undisclosed income; or (ii) any expense/exemption/deduction/allowance claimed under the Act which is found to be incorrect. The Act consolidates the concept under (e), merging the two ideas into one continuous sentence and, per the appended note, corrects a typographical error ("or or any" corrected to "or any").
    • Practical impact: Substantively the Act appears to preserve both limbs of the Bill's definition, but the Act's merged wording could affect syntactic clarity and the parsing of whether the second limb is an alternative or a continuation. The corrigenda indicates only a textual correction, not a policy change.
  • Terminology for virtual assets: Both texts expressly include "virtual digital asset" in the list of items capable of constituting undisclosed income.
    • Practical impact: Confirms legislative intent to treat virtual assets on par with traditional valuables in search/requisition contexts.
  • Minor editorial differences: The Bill uses semicolons and clause divisions (a)-(g); the Act uses (a)-(e) with subclauses.
    • Practical impact: Largely drafting-style; may require attention in drafting cross-references and rules.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: The Clause identifies a multi-year window ("block period") for investigation of undisclosed income, incorporating both the six preceding tax years and the year-of-search period up to the last authorisation. Taxpayers subject to search/requisition must be cognisant that both physical assets (including VDA) and documentary entries for that combined period are within scope.
  • Record-keeping/evidence points: Because "requisitioned items" and "seized items" explicitly include books of account and various forms of valuables, maintaining contemporaneous documentation, clear provenance and substantiation of claimed expenses/exemptions for the block period will be essential. The Clause makes the panchnama the operative record for concluding a search; therefore preservation and contestation of panchnama contents may be critical in subsequent proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 301 defines "block period" as six tax years preceding the tax year of search/requisition plus the part of that tax year up to the last authorisation.
  • Both physical assets (including money, bullion, jewellery and virtual digital assets) and documentary/book entries are captured within "undisclosed income".
  • The Clause separately recognises incorrect claims of expense, exemption, deduction or allowance as constitutive of "undisclosed income".
  • Procedural milestone: the last panchnama (for searches) and actual receipt by Authorised Officer (for requisition) determine the completion of authorisation for temporal calculations.
  • "Requisitioned items" and "seized items" are separately defined to include books of account and valuables, thus clarifying the kinds of materials that can be requisitioned or seized u/ss 247-248.
  • The Clause does not set out exceptions, thresholds, rights of persons from whom items are seized/requisitioned, or detailed procedural safeguards-those are Not stated in the document.
  • References to other legislative instruments, dates of effect, appeals or procedures post-seizure/requisition are Not stated in the document.

Full Text:

Section 301 Interpretation

Topics

Acts Income Tax