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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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