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
    Refund of IGST in SEZ Transactions: Legal Insights
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unexplained Cash Deposits and Section 115BBE: Applicability of Higher Rate of Tax
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of goods and the reliance on technical reports for legal decision-making.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 127 of the Income Tax Act: A Case Study on Jurisdictional Transfer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Sections 22, 23, and 24: Taxation of Notional Rental Income from House Property and Vac...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A and Income Tax Assessments Post Search and Seizure Operations: Exploring the Role of In...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of Judicial Approach in Tax Evasion through Accommodation Entries: A Case Study
    Case LawsCustoms
    Adhering to Procedural Norms: The Importance of Timely Filing of Cross Objections
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Taxation of Cooperative Societies: A Legal Analysis of Deduction Eligibility U/s 80P
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing Section 43B's Application in Service Tax Liabilities: A Legal Perspective.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessing the Enforceability of Section 148 Notices Post-Assessee's Demise: Legal Heirs and Income T...
    Balancing Tax Provisions and Circulars: Insights from a Refund of Unutilized ITC due to an Inverted ...
    Typographical Error in E-way Bill and GST Penalty: A Legal Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Threshold for Criminal Prosecution in Cases of Non-Compliance with Income Tax Laws
    The Supreme Court's Interpretation of IBC: Balancing Stakeholder Rights and Procedural Efficiency
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Timeliness and Validity of Charitable Trust Registrations under Section 80G: A Legal Examination
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Nuances of Income Tax Reassessment Post-Finance Act 2021: Resetting the Clock in Tax ...
    Interpretation of Reverse Charge Mechanism in Raw Cotton Purchases: The Role of Kacha Arhtia
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Source Rule in International Taxation: Tax Implications for Non-Resident Service Providers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of 'Success Fees' in International Transactions: The Nexus Doctrine: Situs of residence and...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Refund entitlement for SEZ supplies upheld despite endorsement delays and technical defects; limitation treated as directory.
    A refund claim for IGST on supplies to SEZ units should not be denied solely for delay or technical defects in export endorsements when delays arise from the authorized officer and the goods have reached the SEZ with tax remitted. The endorsement need not state authorized operations retrospectively. Procedural rules permit rectification and refiling of refund applications, limitation provisions are to be treated as directory in this context, and notifications excluding periods from limitation computation support allowance of genuine claims; minor documentary mismatches can be corrected by revised statements.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash deposits: prospective application of higher tax rate under Section 115BBE clarified for post-amendment assessments.
    The assessing process treated certain cash receipts as unexplained under Section 69A read with the higher-rate taxation provision, but acceptance of an opening cash balance and maintenance of a cash book reduced the addition; contemporaneous records are decisive. The amendment imposing a special flat tax rate on unexplained income applies prospectively and does not operate retrospectively, so its applicability depends on the assessment year.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of goods: tribunal treated unauthorised laboratory testing as undermining test reports, affecting customs classification and valuation.
    Classification turned on whether imports were furnace oil or waste oil, with the tribunal emphasising the necessity that laboratory test reports originate from a laboratory authorised to analyse the substance; unauthorised testing undermined the reports' evidentiary weight and, accordingly, the tribunal accepted the appellant's declared classification and valuation while stressing reliance on duly authorised, competent laboratories for customs determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional transfer under Section 127 can reassign assessments within the same city without prior hearing, as an administrative measure.
    Jurisdictional transfer under Section 127 empowers senior tax officials to reassign cases for administrative convenience, generally requiring reasons and an opportunity to be heard; however, transfers within the same city do not require prior hearing. The tribunal found a valid transfer order centralising the matter within the same city, held the absence of prior hearing immaterial under the intra-city exception, and concluded the administrative transfer did not prejudice the assessee or invalidate the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Notional rental income: ownership can trigger annual value assessment with standard deduction; vacancy allowance restricted when not let.
    Ownership alone can give rise to taxable annual value by way of notional rental income, with annual value for unlet properties determined by reference to expected rent and, where applicable, by a proportionate measure of property cost. From that annual value the statutory 30% standard deduction and interest on borrowed capital are deductible. Vacancy allowance is not treated as available where properties remain unlet for the entire year, and balance-sheet disclosure of property ownership can support assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material discovered during search permits reassessment under Section 153A, validating additional income adjustments by tax authorities.
    The Tribunal applied the principle that discovery of previously undisclosed documents during a search can constitute incriminating material, thereby activating Section 153A jurisdiction to reassess income for multiple prior years. It found an undisclosed balance sheet showing ownership of properties as incriminating, and addressed related challenges - estimation of house property income, jurisdictional objections, notice deficiencies, interest levies, and natural justice claims - against the backdrop of valid reassessment under the search-linked provision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Genuineness of transactions: accommodation entries and circumstantial evidence can defeat claimed tax exemptions without commercial substance.
    Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) is justified where claims rest on paper companies and accommodation entry providers; synchronized trading, SEBI identified price rigging, and weak connection between claimants and transactions diminish the probative value of demat statements and share certificates. The legal focus is on the onus of proof, application of the preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial inferences, requiring the assessee to establish commercial substance for unsecured loans and claimed trades rather than rely solely on documentation.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Timely filing of cross objections: strict procedural compliance required, limited scope for delay condonation without sufficient cause.
    The article focuses on the requirement to file cross objections within the prescribed period after service of an appeal notice, the department's failure to meet that timeline, and its subsequent delay condonation application citing unavailability of appeal copies and pandemic disruption. The tribunal closely examined these grounds, applied the sufficiency-of-cause standard and pandemic limitation guidance, and emphasized strict procedural compliance and departmental duty to ensure timely filings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction under Section 80P for cooperative societies hinges on mutuality and classification as cooperative banks.
    Deduction eligibility under Section 80P depends on the principle of mutuality and on whether receipts involve entities that qualify as banking companies; interest income meeting mutuality criteria may be deductible for cooperative societies, whereas interest arising from dealings with entities classifiable as banks should be treated as income from other sources. The tribunal required verification of claims and reclassification of such interest where applicable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B payment rule prevents deduction for unpaid service tax, altering taxable income and accounting timing.
    Section 43B's payment-based rule makes deductions allowable only on actual payment; applied to service tax, unpaid service tax not remitted before the return filing due date is disallowable and may be treated as part of assessee's income, despite not being charged to profit and loss. Under mercantile accounting service tax received must be included in turnover, and legislative changes to payment schedules affect compliance timing; precedents reinforce that non-payment precludes deduction under the non-absentee payment requirement of Section 43B.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Validity of reassessment notices to deceased assessees hinges on proper service to legal heirs, else jurisdiction is lacking.
    The core legal rule is that reassessment notices must be served on a living person or the legal heir; issuance to a deceased individual vitiates jurisdiction. Service on the correct person is a condition precedent to reassessment, and legal heirs have no statutory duty to inform authorities of death. Legal representative liability arises only where proceedings began during the assessee's lifetime and may be continued against successors. Courts may restrain actions taken without jurisdiction while statutory remedies remain available.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Refund of unutilized ITC: circulars cannot override statutory entitlement where inverted duty structures cause credit accumulation.
    Interpretation of Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 54(3) concerns eligibility for refund of unutilized ITC when inputs attract higher tax than outputs; administrative Circular No. 135/05/2020 was applied by revenue to deny refunds where principal input and output bore the same rate, but the circular cannot add to or curtail statutory entitlements and the legislative intent requires considering all inputs that cause ITC accumulation.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Typographical error in e-way bill should not attract GST penalty absent intent to evade tax.
    A typographical error in the e-way bill vehicle number resulted in seizure and a GST penalty; the court held that an isolated clerical mismatch, when other transport and tax documents correspond and no further evidence of evasion exists, does not demonstrate the requisite mens rea for penal action and quashed the penalty orders, stressing equitable application of detention and seizure provisions.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to file tax returns within the prescribed time can sustain criminal prosecution despite later accepted belated returns.
    The dispute focuses on prosecution under Section 276CC for failure to file returns within the prescribed time, where acceptance of a belated return and dismissal of penalty proceedings do not necessarily negate the presumption of mens rea; the accused bears the burden to rebut intentional concealment, and evidential material from searches indicating undisclosed transactions can sustain criminal proceedings.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Moratorium protection preserves debtor rights and enforces strict statutory timelines in insolvency proceedings while safeguarding participatory fairness.
    Stages under Sections 95-99 are non-judicial; the resolution professional facilitates fact-finding and gives a recommendatory report, while the adjudicating authority must independently assess materials and exercise jurisdiction. The moratorium functions as a protective statutory bar on creditor actions requiring strict adherence to timelines. Natural justice obligations persist: debtors retain participatory rights and an opportunity to be heard, and procedural fairness can be inferred from the legislative scheme even absent express hearing language.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timeliness of Section 80G applications: application treated as timely and statutory reconsideration directed under purposive interpretation.
    Timeliness of registration under Section 80G was examined with focus on statutory deadlines, the effect of provisional approval under Section 80G(5), and amendments impacting trusts that commenced activities before formal registration; interpretation emphasised purposive and harmonious construction, legislative intent, natural justice in notice and hearing, and directed reconsideration of eligibility with opportunity to submit documents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period in tax reassessment: amended time limits prevent retrospective validation of reassessment notices under the new regime.
    The document focuses on the amended reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act 2021, highlighting the shortened limitation periods and the mandatory pre-notice procedure requiring inquiry and opportunity to be heard. It rejects administrative attempts to render earlier notices compliant with amended law via retrospective treatment, finds the 'travel back in time' theory legally impermissible, and stresses that limitation periods, pandemic-related extensions, and procedural safeguards determine the validity of reopening assessments.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism applies when buyer bears GST liability for raw cotton purchased through an intermediary Kacha Arhtia.
    The AAR concluded that a Kacha Arhtia acts as an intermediary who facilitates sale, executes Form I, deducts commission and remits proceeds to the seller, and does not transfer title; therefore, where raw cotton is purchased from an agriculturist through a Kacha Arhtia, the registered buyer is liable to pay GST under the reverse charge mechanism, while market fee obligations and auction procedures under the APMC Rules govern the transaction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source rule protects payments for services used to earn income abroad from domestic taxation when characterised accordingly.
    Whether aircraft maintenance and repair by a non-resident constitutes technical services is addressed by reference to the specialised expertise, regulatory and safety obligations distinguishing such services from ordinary repairs; contemporaneously, retrospective statutory amendments clarifying taxation of fees for technical services are balanced against the source rule exception, under which payments for services used to earn income abroad are not taxed domestically.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Nexus doctrine: source based taxation requires a real territorial connection to tax cross border consultancy success fees.
    A "success fee" paid to a non resident for consultancy services characterized by human expertise constitutes a fee for technical services when there is a real and substantial connection between the income and India. The right to tax is allocated by the source rule: income is taxable in the jurisdiction where the economic source of payment is located. Parliamentary taxing power over extra territorial income is limited by the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus; only payments with a sufficient nexus to India are subject to tax at source obligations.

    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