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
    Navigating Legal Timelines: The Impact of Incomplete ITBA Orders on Appeal Limitations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Thin Line Between Charity and Commerce: Amendment of Trust Deed and Compliance with S...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Changing Objectives of Registered Societies: Exemption u/s 11 and survival of the Registration u/s 1...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Residential Status and Jurisdictional Shift in Income Tax Cases
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Scrutinizing the Genuineness of Gifts in Income Tax Law: Taxability of Gift u/s 68
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting TDS Liability u/s 194-I against Lease Payments: A Legal Analysis of Security Deposit vs...
    Analyzing GST Implications on Free of Cost Supplies in Service Agreements: A Case Study
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evaluating Jurisdictional Validity in Taxation: The Significance of Draft Assessment Orders under Se...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Breaking Down the Supreme Court's Decision on Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Balancing Sovereignty and Law: India's Treaty-Making Powers and Domestic Enforcement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating DTAAs: A Comparative Analysis of India, Netherlands, France, and Switzerland
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The OECD Membership Puzzle: Interpreting 'Is' in Double Taxation Agreements
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Dual Life of Treaties: Understanding Their Enforcement in Indian Law
    Bail, Arrest, and Rights: A Close Look at Recent PMLA Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classifying Data Collection Devices in Import Regulations: The Kronos 4500 Touch ID Terminal Case
    The Power to Rectify versus Power to review of assessment order: Tax Assessments
    From Land Transactions to Money Laundering: A Legal Odyssey
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment Proceedings and Validity of Section 143(2) Notices: Jurisdictional Clarity and Monetary L...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Landmark Judgment on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: A Legal Analysis
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchases made during the manufacturing process of goods: ...
❯❯
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
    Incomplete assessment communication can delay the start of the limitation period for appeals when essential contents are not disclosed.
    Incomplete ITBA order uploads do not void an assessment but may postpone the commencement of the limitation period for appeals because knowledge of decision requires understanding the essential contents; defective communication can justify extension of time even though the assessment's substantive validity remains unaffected.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable status preserved where incidental surplus, trustee payments, or deed amendments further educational objectives without private benefit.
    The Court analysed whether surplus generation, fee policies, deed amendments, and payments to trustees removed an educational trust's charitable purpose. It held that incidental surplus and deed changes furthering objectives do not automatically negate charitable character, and payments for genuine services do not necessarily amount to private benefit. Cancellation of registration requires proof of lack of genuineness or objective deviation; mere shortcomings or commercial elements aimed at sustainability are insufficient.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Alteration of objects: failure to notify tax authority can jeopardise a society's registered status under section 12A.
    A material amendment of a registered society's objects, coupled with failure to intimate the Commissioner under rule 17B and Form No.10A, undermines the basis of registration under Section 12A; Section 12AA(3) addresses activities inconsistent with objects, whereas fundamental change in the objects themselves requires statutory intimation to preserve the original registration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Residential status determination can shift tax assessment jurisdiction when overseas activities do not qualify as employment.
    The Tribunal examined whether the appellant's overseas activities constituted employment for residential-status purposes, applying ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis to conclude they did not. Consequently, the officer of international taxation's assumption of jurisdiction based on non resident status was improper once residential status was contested; the file should have been transferred to the territorially competent assessing officer or an authorised officer. An assessment conducted without such lawful jurisdiction was characterised as legally defective and without effect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Genuineness of gifts requires proof of donor identity and capacity, otherwise taxability follows under assessment rules.
    The High Court examined taxation of receipts treated as gifts, stressing that the assessee must prove the genuineness of gifts by establishing donor identity and the donors' capacity and creditworthiness; acceptance by lower authorities does not relieve the recipient of the burden of proof, and inadequate documentary corroboration justifies reassessment where donations are doubtful.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance rent characterization alters TDS obligations under Section 194-I, requiring payers to deduct tax at source.
    Payments labelled as a security deposit that are contractually reduced and adjusted against periodic rent payments are treated as advance rent rather than refundable security, and thus constitute rent for TDS purposes, obliging the payer to deduct tax at source under the statutory withholding framework.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Non-monetary consideration: free diesel treated as part of taxable value for GTA services under GST implications.
    Whether diesel supplied free of cost by a service recipient constitutes consideration for GST valuation of Goods Transport Agency services is examined, with the analysis concluding that non-monetary benefits provided by recipients may be added to the taxable value and that contractual allocation of free supplies does not displace the statutory valuation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Draft assessment procedure required under law: omission invalidates assessment proceedings and denies assessee DRP objection rights.
    Section 144C mandates a non-obstante, mandatory draft assessment procedure for eligible assessees, requiring issuance of a draft order, opportunity to file objections, and consideration by a three-member Dispute Resolution Panel. A foreign entity qualifying as an eligible assessee must be afforded this process; failure to issue the draft order is a substantive lapse that deprives the assessee of the DRP forum and engenders jurisdictional infirmity in any consequent final assessment, demand, or penalty. Revisionary powers do not obviate the Section 144C mandate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA incorporation: notification requirement under domestic law limits automatic treaty application across countries and clarifies temporal scope.
    The decision holds that a DTAA requires a mandatory notification under Section 90(1) to be effective domestically, that provisions in a DTAA with one country do not automatically extend to other bilateral agreements without explicit amendment, and that the present-tense term "is" fixes the temporal application of treaty benefits to the date of treaty entry with India.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Most favoured nation clause interpretation guides treaty effect, subject to domestic notification requirements for implementation.
    The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in tax treaties must be interpreted under Article 31 VCLT principles as reflecting customary international law, with subsequent agreements and state practice serving as authentic means of interpretation. Domestic implementation procedures materially affect treaty operation: comparative practices of other states cannot substitute for India's requirement of formal domestic steps, including issuance of a notification after a treaty trigger event, to assimilate treaty amendments into national law.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Treaty implementation procedures determine when DTAA modifications bind taxpayers, requiring domestic notification for enforceability.
    In India, DTAA modifications take effect only upon formal domestic notification, preventing automatic retroactive application of third country treaty changes and reflecting a dualist approach requiring assimilation of treaty amendments into domestic law before they bind taxpayers; by contrast, the Netherlands, France, and Switzerland rely on differing domestic mechanisms-executive decrees, parliamentary ratification, or referenda and implementing orders-that may permit retroactive application and integrate treaties into domestic enforceable law.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interpretation of "is" in tax treaties determines when OECD membership triggers treaty benefits under domestic implementation rules.
    Interpretation of the term "is" in DTAAs is context-dependent: although generally present in signification, its temporal application must be determined from the treaty text and purpose. Applied to OECD membership, the operative moment for eligibility to treaty benefits depends on when the DTAA relationship produces the relevant legal consequence, and this assessment must be reconciled with the domestic requirement for legislative action or notification for treaty enforceability.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Treaty Enforcement: legislative enactment required for treaties to create domestic rights; executive negotiation alone is insufficient.
    Treaties do not function as self-executing domestic law; the Union may negotiate and ratify international agreements but legislative enactment is required to create or alter domestic rights and obligations. Under the dualist approach, executive negotiation and foreign measures cannot substitute for domestic incorporation; implementing statutes and notification mechanisms are necessary for tax treaties to be recognized and applied by revenue authorities. Courts may consult treaty texts to resolve ambiguities in domestic implementing laws but cannot themselves import treaty provisions into domestic law absent parliamentary enactment.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Anticipatory bail rights affirmed: non-accused persons may seek protection and PMLA arrests require recorded reasons and prompt court production.
    Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is available even before formal accusation and persons not named in an ECIR have locus standi to seek it. Arrest powers under Section 19 of the PMLA require a recorded reasonable belief by the Director and strict compliance with statutory conditions; failure to record reasons or comply with the arrest provisions can vitiate the arrest. Arrested persons must be produced before the court within 24 hours, excluding transit time, to secure judicial oversight and protect liberty.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of data collection devices clarified; device function governs tariff heading with chapter notes guiding treatment.
    The tribunal examined product documentation and found the Kronos 4500's data capture and transmission functions determinative; applying the General Rules of Interpretation and Chapter Note 5(E) to Chapter 84, it concluded the terminal's proximity/badge reader function governed tariff classification rather than mere central server processing capability.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification vs review: assessing authority lacks power to reopen finalized tax assessments; appellate remedy available.
    The assessing authority distinguished between rectification of manifest errors and review of a finalized assessment, concluding it lacked power to review a completed tax assessment merely because the assessee later adjusted claimed input tax credit; the court emphasised the boundary between corrective filings and reopening concluded assessments and noted the availability of appellate remedy to challenge assessment orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering investigations: quashing ECIRs premature where disclosure is not mandated, and coercive step restraints are constrained.
    Money laundering inquiries arising from land transactions and property registrations involve independent proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; seeking to quash an ECIR is procedurally sensitive where the investigated person lacks a copy and disclosure is not mandated. Such inquiries treat witness status in predicate offences as not determinative of accused status in proceeds of crime investigations, and applications to preclude coercive investigative measures must not substitute for established remedies, while access to investigative records raises transparency questions without creating an absolute entitlement.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional validity of Section 143(2) notices: invalid issuance by wrong officer vitiates ensuing scrutiny proceedings.
    The tribunal found that a statutory scrutiny notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction at the time of issuance was defective, and that subsequent action by another assessing officer did not cure the initial defect; jurisdictional allocation must follow administrative monetary thresholds for metropolitan corporate returns, and failure to issue a valid notice at initiation vitiates scrutiny proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of electronic evidence: Section 65-B certificates may be produced at any trial stage if no irreversible prejudice arises.
    A Section 65-B certificate is not required when an electronic record is used as primary evidence; delay in producing the certificate is not per se fatal if it causes no irreversible prejudice, and procedural tools (including witness recall) may be employed to produce and examine forensic reports derived from seized electronic devices.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility limited to tax payable on sale value when purchased inputs are used in manufacturing.
    Eligibility of Input Tax Credit under the UP VAT Act is constrained by the statute's text: credit is allowed only to the extent of tax payable on the sale value of goods or manufactured goods, with a proportional allocation where exempt by products arise. A statutory deeming fiction treats purchased inputs as used in taxable manufacture when by products emerge, enabling ITC claims for taxable outputs and certain exempt by products but disallowing credit for non VAT goods, all governed by strict construction of the statute.

    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