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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 305 "Right of representative assessee to recover tax paid." 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 305 Right of representative assessee to recover tax paid

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 305 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Right of representative assessee to recover tax paid." It sets out the legal position of a representative assessee who pays tax on behalf of another person (the principal), including rights of recovery and retained amounts. The provision primarily affects representative assessees, principals, and tax authorities involved in assessment and recovery; no explicit effective date is stated in the text.

      Background & Scope

      Clause 305, Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Context: general provisions governing "Representative assesses" within the Bill. Coverage: rights of a representative assessee who pays sums under the Act to recover such sums from the person on whose behalf payment was made, and the correlative right to retain monies in his possession. The clause contains four sub-sections establishing (1) general right of recovery or retention; (2) power to retain estimated liability; (3) procedure to obtain a certificate from the Assessing Officer in case of disagreement; and (4) a cap on the amount recoverable relative to the certificate. The clause does not include definitions of "representative assessee" or "principal" within the text of the clause; therefore, definitions, if any, are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause comprises four sub-sections describing the legal position of a representative assessee:

      • Sub-section (1): A representative assessee who pays any sum under the Act is entitled to recover the sum so paid from the person on whose behalf it is paid (the principal), or to retain out of moneys that are in his possession or may come to him in his representative capacity an amount equal to the sum so paid.
      • Sub-section (2): Any representative assessee, or a person who apprehends that he may be assessed as a representative assessee, may retain out of any money payable by him to the person on whose behalf he is liable to pay tax (referred to in this clause as the principal), a sum equal to his estimated liability under this Chapter.
      • Sub-section (3): If there is disagreement between the principal and the representative assessee about the amount to be retained under sub-section (2), the representative assessee or apprehended representative may secure from the Assessing Officer a certificate stating the amount to be so retained pending final settlement, and such certificate is a warrant for retaining that amount.
      • Sub-section (4): The amount recoverable from such representative assessee or person shall not exceed the amount specified in such certificate, except to the extent to which the representative assessee or person may at such time have in his hands additional assets of the principal.

      Interpretation

      The text establishes a statutory entitlement in favour of a representative assessee both in contract-like terms (right to recover sums paid) and in possessory terms (right to retain monies in his representative capacity). The presence of an entitlement to retain "estimated liability" (sub-section (2)) and the mechanism of a certificate from the Assessing Officer (sub-section (3)) indicate a legislative intent to provide a practical and enforceable method for representative assessees to secure themselves against liability and to avoid immediate disputes with principals impeding tax collection.

      Key interpretive principles indicated by the text: (a) the right is remedial and proprietary in nature-recovery or retention is permitted rather than discretionary; (b) the certificate from the Assessing Officer is given statutory force as a "warrant" to retain amounts pending settlement; and (c) a cap on recoverability is tied to the certificate, subject to additional assets in the representative's hands.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (4) functions as a proviso, limiting the representative assessee's right of recovery to the amount specified in the Assessing Officer's certificate, unless the representative then has additional assets of the principal. No other exceptions, limitations, temporal qualifications, or monetary thresholds appear in the clause. Specifics such as timelines for obtaining the certificate, the method of estimating liability, or standards for the Assessing Officer in granting the certificate are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A bank acting as representative assessee pays tax of INR 10 lakh on behalf of its depositor. Under sub-section (1), the bank may recover INR 10 lakh from the depositor or retain INR 10 lakh from money received in its representative capacity.
      • Example 2: A person anticipates being assessed as a representative assessee and retains INR 2 lakh from amounts payable to the principal as an estimated liability under sub-section (2). If the principal disputes the amount to be retained, the person obtains a certificate under sub-section (3) from the Assessing Officer specifying INR 1.8 lakh; sub-section (4) then limits recoverability to INR 1.8 lakh unless the representative holds further assets of the principal.
      • Example 3: Not stated in the document: procedural timelines for securing the certificate or consequences for failure to obtain one.

      Interplay

      The clause refers to "this Chapter" for the concept of estimated liability, implying interaction with other provisions of the Bill governing assessment and tax liability; those cross-references or rules are Not stated in the document. The role of the Assessing Officer is central, but procedural rules, forms, or appeals against the certificate are Not stated in the document. Any interplay with civil recovery mechanisms, insolvency proceedings, or specific provisions on fiduciary duties of representative assessees is Not stated in the document.

        Differences Between Document 1 (Section 305, Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 Clause 305 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

        TopicOld Bill (Document 2)Enacted Section (Document 1)
        Text of sub-section (2)Uses parenthetical phrase "(herein referred to as the principal)".Uses parenthetical phrase "(hereinafter in this section 306 referred to as the principal)".
        Text of sub-section (4)"The amount recoverable from such representative assessee or person shall not exceed the amount specified in such certificate, except to the extent to which such representative assessee or person may at such time have in his hands additional assets of the principal.""The amount recoverable from such representative assessee or person at the time of final settlement shall not exceed the amount specified in such certificate, except to the extent to which such representative assessee or person may at such time have in his hands additional assets of the principal."

        Practical impact of each change:

        • The insertion in sub-section (4) in the enacted Section (Document 1) of the phrase "at the time of final settlement" qualifies the cap on recoverability by anchoring it specifically to the moment of final settlement. Practically, this narrows the statutory cap so that the certificate amount limits recoverability only at final settlement; however, the carve-out for "additional assets of the principal" remains. This may affect timing disputes-under the enacted text, the certificate amount is a definitive cap at settlement, potentially allowing a representative who later acquires further assets of the principal to recover beyond the certificate amount; conversely, it may prevent recovery beyond the certificate amount at settlement even if interim circumstances change. The Bill's earlier wording lacked the temporal qualifier, which could have been interpreted to cap recovery permanently by reference to the certificate. The enacted change therefore clarifies temporal application, reducing ambiguity.
        • The change in sub-section (2) from "herein referred to as the principal" to the enacted (apparently erroneous or typographical) parenthetical referencing "in this section 306" introduces potential drafting confusion (reference to section 306). Practically, this is likely a drafting error; it may call for interpretive attention, but the substantive meaning-that the person on whose behalf payment is made is the "principal"-remains clear. The Bill's original wording was clearer in this respect.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Representative assessees gain a statutory right to recover taxes paid and to retain amounts equal to sums paid or estimated liabilities. This reduces credit risk for representative assessees but creates potential dispute points with principals when the estimate is contested. The certificate mechanism shifts interim control to the Assessing Officer, limiting disputes over immediate retention.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: Representative assessees should maintain contemporaneous records of payments made on behalf of principals, documentation of amounts receivable from principals, and records supporting any estimated liability retained. Records substantiating the basis for the estimate and communications with the principal will be material in the event of disagreement or enforcement of the certificate. The clause itself does not prescribe required documents or retention periods-those are Not stated in the document.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 305 grants a statutory right to representative assessees to recover sums paid under the Act from the principal or to retain equivalent amounts coming into their hands.
        • Representative assessees-or persons who apprehend such assessment-may retain estimated liabilities from monies payable to the principal.
        • In case of disagreement about retention amounts, the representative may obtain a certificate from the Assessing Officer, which serves as a warrant to retain the certified amount pending final settlement.
        • Recoverability is capped by the certificate amount, except where the representative holds additional assets of the principal.
        • The clause provides practical safeguards for representative assessees but leaves procedural details (timelines, criteria for certificate issuance, appeals, definitions) unstated in the text.

        Full Text:

        Section 305 Right of representative assessee to recover tax paid

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax