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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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 304 "Liability of representative assessee." 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 304 Liability of representative assessee

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The materials are two textual iterations of a provision dealing with the liability of a "representative assessee" (Clause 304 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version; and Section 304 of the Income-tax Act, 2025). They set out the duties, liabilities and remedies applicable where a person is treated as a representative assessee for income tax purposes. The provision affects taxpayers (trusts, representatives, beneficiaries) and tax authorities; the effective date is not stated in the documents.

      Background & Scope

      Clause/Section 304 - Liability of representative assessee (Representative assesses-General provisions) within the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025. The texts define the legal position of a representative assessee in respect of income "in respect of which he is a representative assessee." Definitions or explanatory notes for "representative assessee," "trust," "beneficiary," or other key terms are not stated in the document.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        The provision applies "as regards the income in respect of which he is a representative assessee." Key elements:

        • Sub-section (1): The representative assessee is subject to the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if the income were beneficially his. In the Bill (Old Version) this includes express liability "to assessment and any other proceedings under this Act" in his own name; in the Act version the express language focuses on assessment in his own name and deems such assessment to be in his representative capacity only.
        • Sub-section (2): Exclusivity - if a person is assessable in the capacity of a representative assessee in respect of any income, he shall not, in respect of that income, be assessed under any other provisions of the Act.
        • Sub-section (3): Despite the Chapter, the Assessing Officer may directly assess the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the income is receivable, or recover tax from such person.
        • Sub-section (4): Where only part of a trust's income is chargeable, the proportion of income receivable by a beneficiary from the chargeable part is determined by the formula (A/B) x C, where A = chargeable part, B = whole income of the trust, C = income receivable by the beneficiary from the trust.
        • Sub-section (5): The Assessing Officer has the same remedies in the same manner against all property vested in or under the control/management of any representative assessee as he would against property of any person liable to pay tax, whether demand is raised against the representative or the beneficiary directly.

        Interpretation

        The text indicates legislative intent to (a) treat a representative assessee as if the income were his for duties and liabilities; (b) enable assessment and recovery against the representative in his own name; and (c) preserve the revenue's ability to reach the underlying person for assessment or recovery. The inclusion of an exclusive assessment rule (sub-section (2)) signals an intent to avoid multiplicity of assessments for the same income. The formula in sub-section (4) reflects a pro rata allocation approach where only part of trust income is chargeable.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        No express provisos or exceptions beyond those embedded in sub-sections (2) and (3) are provided. Thresholds, de minimis rules, or exemptions are not stated in the document.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: A trustee (representative assessee) receives income from a trust; the trustee is liable to assessment in his own name for the trust income that is chargeable. Not stated in the document whether the trustee must file a separate return as representative assessee - procedural specifics are not stated in the document.
        • Example 2: A trust has total income of 1,000 (B). The chargeable part (A) is 200. A beneficiary is entitled to 100 (C) from the trust. The beneficiary's share of the chargeable part is (A/B) x C = (200/1,000) x 100 = 20. (This follows the formula provided.)

        Interplay

        Sub-section (3) creates an express reservation of power for the Assessing Officer to act directly against the beneficial owner despite the representative framework; this interacts with sub-section (2) (exclusivity) to leave operational flexibility with the revenue. No other Rules, Notifications or Circulars are cited in the document; their existence or interplay is not stated in the document.

        Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

        • Wording difference in paragraph (1)(a):The Bill (Document 2 - Old Version) states that the representative assessee "shall be liable to assessment and any other proceedings under this Act, in his own name" and that "any such proceedings shall be deemed to be made upon him in his representative capacity only." The Act text (Document 1) states that the representative assessee "shall be liable to assessment in his own name" and that "any such assessment shall be deemed to be made upon him in his representative capacity only"-omitting the phrase "and any other proceedings under this Act" and replacing "proceedings" with "assessment" in the deeming language.
        • Practical impact of omission: The Bill's broader phrase ("any other proceedings") expressly placed litigation and other procedural steps under the representative's name; the enacted text appears to narrow the express attribution to assessment proceedings specifically. Practically, this could be interpreted to limit the statutory statement of liability primarily to assessments, rather than to every procedural or adjudicatory step under the Act. That may affect procedural standing and the extent to which the representative is the statutory party for all enforcement or other action-although other provisions (e.g., sub-section (3)) preserve certain direct actions. The practical effect will depend on interpretation by authorities and courts; the enacted text may create an argument that some non-assessment proceedings are not statutorily required to be in the representative's name, unless other provisions or rules provide otherwise.
        • Other substantive paragraphs ((2)-(5)) are materially identical between the two texts. Therefore, where present, the protections, remedies and computation method for partial trust income are preserved.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Representative assessees are placed in substantially the same fiscal position as beneficial owners for assessment and recovery. Practitioners should note that liability may attach to property under control/management of the representative (sub-section (5)). The narrowing of the Bill's phrase "any other proceedings" to "assessment" in the enacted text (if interpreted strictly) may create procedural uncertainty about whether non-assessment proceedings (e.g., appeals or other actions) are statutorily confined to the representative; this could affect notice-service, party-joinder and litigation positioning. However, sub-section (3) preserves direct action against the beneficial owner.
        • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implicitly highlights the need to document the relationship between the representative and the beneficial owner, the quantum and partition of trust income and records substantiating the chargeable part of trust income (A), total income (B) and beneficiary receipts (C), since the statutory formula requires those figures. Evidence of control or management of property will be relevant where the revenue seeks remedies under sub-section (5).

        Key Takeaways

        • The provision treats representative assessees as if the income were beneficially theirs for duties, liabilities and assessment purposes.
        • The Bill's Old Version expressly referenced "any other proceedings under this Act" in sub-section (1)(a); the enacted Act language narrows the express wording to assessment-creating a potential interpretive difference over procedural scope.
        • Where a person is assessed as a representative assessee for any income, that person should not be assessed for the same income under any other provision of the Act (exclusivity rule).
        • The Assessing Officer retains explicit power to assess or recover tax directly from the beneficial owner despite representative assessment provisions.
        • For trusts with only part of income chargeable, the statute prescribes a precise pro rata formula to determine the beneficiary's attributable portion from the chargeable part.
        • The Assessing Officer has equivalent remedies against property under control/management of a representative assessee as he would against a person liable to pay tax.
        • Procedural specifics (filing, notices, appeals) and definitions (representative assessee, trust, beneficiary) are not stated in the document.

        Action Points

        • Not stated in the document: procedural steps for filing returns, notices, or appeals specific to representative assessees.
        • Stakeholders should preserve and be able to produce records establishing the chargeable part of trust income, total trust income and amounts receivable by beneficiaries to apply sub-section (4)'s formula.
        • Where litigation or proceedings arise, careful attention should be paid to party-joinder and whether proceedings must be instituted in the name of the representative or the beneficial owner; the textual difference between the Bill and the Act may be relevant in such disputes.

        Full Text:

        Section 304 Liability of representative assessee

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax