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
    Limitation Period in Insolvency Appeals: A Step Towards Legal Clarity for determination of relevant ...
    CircularsCustoms
    Navigating Trade Restrictions: India's Stance on North Korea Exports and Imports
    Deadline Adherence in Insolvency Claims: The Supreme Court on Enforcing Arbitration Awards Amidst In...
    Resolution Plan Approvals: The Supreme Court's Clarification on NCLT and NCLAT's Jurisdiction in Ins...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Tax Exemptions u/s 80P: The Supreme Court's Verdict on Cooperative Societies vs. Banks
    Case LawsCustoms
    Supreme Court Verdict on Pre-Import Condition and IGST Exemptions: A Legal Analysis
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Understanding Beneficial Ownership: A Landmark Admiralty Case in India
    Case LawsCustoms
    Beneficial Ownership, Beyond Baggage in Customs Law: Seizure of foreign currency
    Expanding Trade Horizons: The 2023 Amendment to SEZ Rules for Gem and Jewellery Units
    The Significance of Signature: A Landmark Decision on GST Assessment Orders
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principles of Natural Justice in Tax Litigation: Unraveling the Significance of Cross-Examination Ri...
    CircularsIncome Tax
    Deadline Extension for Processing E-Filed Tax Returns: Refund Claims on Income Tax Returns
    Deadline Extended for Pharmaceutical Track and Trace System Implementation
    NotificationsCompanies Law
    MCA Announces Establishment of Central Processing Centre at IMT Manesar
    CircularsCustoms
    Export Obligation Compliance: Detailed SOPs for EPCG and Advance Authorization Holders
    IBBI Circular Update: Key Takeaways for Insolvency Professionals and Stakeholders
    NotificationsIncome Tax
    Modes of filing of ITR: Amendments to Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules 1962
    Finance Bill, 2024 Insights: The Expansion of Input Service Distributor's (ISD) Role in GST
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Understanding Burden of Proof in Cheque Bounce Cases: Insights from a Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Analysis of Vicarious Liability under Section 141 of the NI Act in Partnership Firms: Liability in C...
❯❯
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 LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period in insolvency appeals starts when an order is made known, affecting appeal timeliness and procedure.
    The limitation period for appeals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code begins when the order is made known, not merely when the hearing concludes; if an order is uploaded later because no actual pronouncement occurred, the limitation clock starts from the upload date. The court reinstated the appeal, underscored that the statutory appeal window is subject to a discretionary condonable extension upon sufficient cause, and urged reassessment of physical filing requirements in favor of streamlined electronic practices.
    CircularsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Trade sanctions compliance: ensure accurate origin and destination declarations to avoid prohibited transactions and enforcement action.
    The Customs Trade Notice reiterates that specified transactions with North Korea are prohibited under India's foreign trade framework and requires traders to ensure accurate country-of-origin and destination declarations. It mandates re-evaluation of trade practices to prevent direct or indirect prohibited dealings, corrective action for prior misdeclarations, and warns of penalties and enforcement measures under the customs regime to uphold sanctions and national security.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Timely claim submission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is crucial for arbitration award enforcement and creditor equity.
    Enforceability of arbitration awards in insolvency depends on strict compliance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's timeline-driven claim submission and admission processes; arbitration award holders must present and validate claims within the IBC framework so individual enforcement does not undermine the collective, time-bound insolvency resolution and equitable distribution among creditors.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of creditors limits tribunal-ordered asset revaluation, affirming restrained judicial review in insolvency cases.
    The core issue is whether tribunals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code may order revaluation of a corporate debtor and thereby intrude upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The Court stressed the limited scope of judicial review, holding that adjudicatory authorities must not substitute their judgment for the CoC's commercial determinations absent specific objections or statutory grounds; expert valuation may assist but does not mandate revaluation that alters CoC choices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax exemption under Section 80P clarified: cooperative societies engaged in non banking, member centric activities retain deduction eligibility.
    Classification for tax concessions under Section 80P depends on an entity's functional character, regulatory oversight, and whether it engages in commercial banking. Entities that are member centric and do not perform commercial banking functions align with the legislative intent to promote cooperative societies and remain eligible for deductions; regulatory distinctions and precedents support treating non bank cooperative activity as within the exemption framework.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-import condition upheld as a permissible policy measure to align IGST exemptions with actual use of imported inputs.
    The Supreme Court considered the validity of the pre-import condition for claiming IGST exemptions under Advance Authorizations, treating such conditions as an exercise of executive policy discretion within the Foreign Trade Policy to ensure exemptions match actual use of inputs in export production. The Court acknowledged exporters' operational difficulties but framed its analysis around permissible policy choices in economic regulation. It further held that the subsequent withdrawal of the condition could not be given retrospective effect because the statutory scheme does not authorize retrospective regulations of that nature.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Beneficial ownership in admiralty: charterer control can justify vessel claims where control and use link liability to the ship.
    The Supreme Court defined beneficial ownership in admiralty as a functional concept based on control and use rather than registered title, holding that a charterer may, in certain factual circumstances such as a bareboat charter, be treated as beneficial owner for maritime claims. The admissibility of arrest against a vessel depends on a fact-sensitive assessment of the charterer's operational control, the contractual obligations in dispute, and established admiralty criteria linking liability to the ship.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Beneficial owner clarification: corporate management of foreign currency, not personal ownership, guides customs seizure jurisdiction.
    Interpretation of Customs Act terms 'goods' and 'baggage' and the concept of beneficial owner were central. The tribunal's jurisdiction was held to cover the seizure notice because the provision was not confined to baggage. On the facts, the foreign currency was managed by the employer for business expenses tied to the respondent's official corporate role, and the respondent was not characterized as the beneficial owner, a conclusion treated as a legal determination grounded in the evidential record.
    NotificationsSEZ
    Show AI Summary
    Sourcing of precious metals allowed free from foreign buyers for direct export to the same buyer, easing operations.
    The amendment permits gem and jewellery units in SEZs to obtain gold, silver or platinum free of charge from foreign buyers for export to the same foreign buyer, supplementing purchase and loan options and operating within the SEZ exemption framework. This condition ties the benefit to export activity and reduces dependency on loan arrangements, thereby improving cash flow and operational efficiency for export transactions involving precious metals.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Validity of unsigned orders cannot be cured by general defect provisions, requiring signed assessment orders for enforcement.
    An unsigned assessment order is legally deficient because absence of a signature is a fundamental omission that cannot be cured by general validation provisions; provisions addressing validation of defects and service of notice do not excuse lack of authentication. Additionally, orders should not be based on grounds different from those in the show cause notice, as that undermines the taxpayer's right to a fair hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Cross examination rights in tax proceedings protect taxpayers when third party seized evidence is used against them.
    The core issue is whether reliance on third party seized documents and an employee's statement to attribute unaccounted interest to the assessee was permissible without permitting cross examination or testing a retraction affidavit. Denial of the opportunity to confront the declarant engages principles of natural justice, and indirect evidence requires direct inquiry and corroboration before adverse tax findings can be sustained.
    CircularsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Processing of e-filed refund claims extended, allowing administrative approval for delayed non-scrutiny returns to secure refunds.
    Processing of electronically filed income-tax returns with refund claims may be completed beyond prescribed time limits for non-scrutiny cases where technical problems or other non-fault causes delayed processing. Assessing officers may process such returns only after prior approval from higher tax authorities; technical support and supervisory monitoring will be provided. The relaxation excludes returns under scrutiny, returns showing or likely to show a payable demand, and returns unprocessed due to taxpayer fault.
    CircularsDGFT
    Show AI Summary
    Track and Trace system extended to give exporters time to implement parent child packaging tracing and Central Portal uploads.
    The DGFT extended the implementation deadline for the Track and Trace system for pharmaceutical exports, requiring maintenance and upload of Parent-Child packaging relationships to the Central Portal. The extension applies to both SSI and non SSI manufacturers and amends Para 2.90A of the Handbook of Procedure to consolidate prior notices and procedural requirements for recording packaging hierarchies and supply chain movements.
    NotificationsCompanies Law
    Show AI Summary
    Centralized e-form processing established to streamline company filings while preserving local Registrar jurisdiction.
    Establishment of a Central Processing Centre at the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs, IMT Manesar, centralizes processing and disposal of company e-forms and related fees under the Companies (Registration of Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014, with nationwide competence, while preserving the Registrar of Companies' jurisdiction over all other matters under the Companies Act and its rules.
    CircularsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Export obligation monitoring: compliance mechanisms and enforcement for EPCG and Advance Authorization beneficiaries clarified.
    An Export Obligation Monitoring Cell will oversee fulfilment under EPCG and Advance Authorization schemes; installation certificates and timelines apply, with random verification of authenticity. The SOP mandates notices to defaulters, DGFT coordination, bond or guarantee execution, penalties, and proportional duty with interest for non-fulfilment, and permits extensions or self-payment in bonafide default cases while stakeholders may report implementation issues to the Principal Commissioner of Customs.
    CircularsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Professional services by insolvency professionals may be provided under approved resolution plans, with billing permitted in professional or entity name.
    The circular permits Insolvency Professionals to render services tied to implementation of approved resolution plans only if those services are specified in the resolution plan, and confirms invoices for services may be issued in the name of the individual professional, the Insolvency Professional Entity, or the firm where the professional is a partner, subject to compliance with the Code of Conduct.
    NotificationsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic filing requirements expanded: audit liable taxpayers must file digitally; senior taxpayers retain flexible filing options.
    Rule 12 amendments require electronic filing for individuals and HUFs subject to audit under section 44AB, permitting filing via digital signature or electronic verification. For other taxpayers the permitted modes are digital signature, electronic transmission with verification code, or electronic filing followed by submission of Form ITR-V. Senior taxpayers are afforded additional flexibility: specified forms may be filed with digital signature, electronically with verification code, electronically with subsequent ITR-V submission, or on paper. The notification also substitutes ITR-1, ITR-3 and ITR-5.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    ISD expansion in GST: ISDs now cover reverse charge invoices and mandatory credit distribution for distinct persons.
    Amendments expand the scope of the Input Service Distributor to include invoices for services subject to the reverse charge mechanism and to cover invoices received "for or on behalf of" distinct persons, making such offices liable to register as ISDs and to distribute input tax credit in the prescribed manner; truly common head office services may remain subject to cross charge rather than ISD distribution.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption in cheque bounce cases shifts burden to accused to rebut claim of legally enforceable debt.
    The complainant must prove issuance, presentation and dishonour of the cheque to trigger the presumption under Section 139, after which the burden shifts to the accused to rebut by proving absence of a legally enforceable debt; conflicting statements and lack of substantive evidence undermine rebuttal and sustain the presumption.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific averments of authority and responsibility; absence undermines the complaint.
    Applicability of vicarious liability in cheque bounce offences under the Negotiable Instruments framework turns on whether the complaint pleads that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business when the offence occurred; resignation is a matter of evidence and allegations of partnership alone are insufficient without specific averments of authority and responsibility.

    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