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
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
    Electronic Communication (E-Service) of Show Cause Notices on the GST Portal: Limits of Validity and...
    Electronic Credit Ledger and Revenue Protection: A Strict Construction of Rule 86A under the CGST Re...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Search, Seizure, and Total Income: Interpreting Section 153A in Light of Incriminating Material - 20...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies: Bypassing Statutory Mechanisms: Limits of Article 226 Wh...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) denial on Share Buybacks under GST: Furtherance of Business vs. Statutory Exc...
    Deeming Fictions and ITC Reversal: Gujarat AAAR on Mutual Fund Transactions as Exempt Supplies
    Show Cause, Don't Pre-Determine: Judicial Scrutiny of Section 74 Notices under the TNGST Act / CGST ...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Benami Attachments and the Collapse of Precedent: Tribunal's Response to the Ganpati Dealcom Review
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Dead Credits and Transitional Limits: CESTAT Larger Bench on Refund of Education and Krishi Kalyan C...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Judicially Crafted SOP: Kerala High Court on Bank Powers to Freeze Suspicious Accounts under PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Computer-Aided Scrutiny: Invalid Scrutiny Notices and CBDT Instructions: ITAT Kolkata Quashes Assess...
    Case LawsCustoms
    High Speed Diesel or Base Oil? Scientific Evidence, Expert Opinion and Tariff Interpretation under C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Characterisation of Aircraft Leases under the India-Ireland DTAA: Operating Lease, Financial Lease, ...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Cognizance, Custody and Complaints under PMLA: The Supreme Court's Integration of BNSS and CrPC Norm...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rental of Aircraft in International Traffic: Dry Leasing and Permanent Establishment: Article 8(1) o...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    MLI, PPT and Aircraft Leasing: Operating vs. Finance Lease and PE Risk in Aircraft Leasing: Reassess...
    E-Way Bills, Expiry and Intent (Mens Rea): Reassessing GST Penalties: Reading Sections 129 and 130 i...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Arrest, Presumption, and Proceeds of Crime: A Holistic Analysis of PMLA Bail Jurisprudence in a GST-...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Wheel Loaders under Heading 8429: From Practice to Principle: Mining Use, HSN Note...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction: Adequate Enquiry, Limited Scrutiny, and the Proper Use of Section...
❯❯
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
    Electronic service of GST show cause notices must be in the prescribed portal location to ensure a real opportunity to be heard.
    Uploading an SCN only under a secondary portal compartment, rather than the primary prescribed location, does not constitute due communication; where an adverse decision is contemplated the Proper Officer must afford an opportunity of hearing, and defective electronic service that prevents participation vitiates the ensuing adjudication, permitting writ intervention to set aside and remit for proper notice and hearing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic Credit Ledger blocking permitted only up to ITC actually available; negative balances and extra statutory recovery are impermissible.
    Rule 86A may be invoked only where input tax credit is actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the blocking order; the power permits disallowing debit equivalent to such available credit as a temporary preventive measure and does not authorize creation of negative ledger balances or serve as a recovery provision. Excess blocking beyond the ECL balance is ultra vires and recovery must proceed under the Act's substantive provisions.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessments under section 153A permit full reassessment for abated years but limit reopened completed years to incriminating search material.
    Section 153A's assessment power is search-linked: for abated years the AO may reassess total income afresh, but for completed/unabated years additions under section 153A are permissible only where specific incriminating material relating to that year is found during the search; absent such material, disturbance of a completed assessment must proceed, if at all, under sections 147-148 subject to their conditions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs appeals: High Court writs are generally restrained where a statutory High Court remedy exists and limitation lapsed.
    Where a statute provides a remedy to the High Court itself, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ intervention under Article 226 to avoid bypassing the statutory machinery; a litigant who has by his own default allowed the statutory limitation for a reference or appeal to lapse cannot ordinarily rely on Article 226 to cure that lapse, and claims of tribunal non consideration demand clear, specific, verified pleadings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Share buybacks and GST: expenses tied to buybacks are not eligible for ITC, and common ITC must be reversed.
    The authority held that shares are "securities" excluded from "goods" and "services," but section 17(3) and the Chapter V rules treat "transactions in securities" as part of the "value of exempt supply" for ITC apportionment; therefore GST paid on expenses directly related to a share buyback is not eligible as ITC under section 16(1), and common ITC attributable to both taxable operations and the buyback must be reversed using the prescribed deeming values.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mutual fund redemptions require proportionate ITC reversal under GST deeming provision; valuation set at 1% of sale value.
    A statutory deeming provision includes transactions in securities within the value of exempt supply for ITC apportionment; the Explanation to the input tax credit rules fixes the value of a security at 1% of its sale value, and redemption of mutual fund units is treated as a sale for this limited valuation purpose, requiring proportionate ITC reversal where common inputs serve both taxable operations and such investment transactions.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST extended-period proceedings require show cause notices to allege and disclose fraud or wilful misstatement.
    Extended limitation under GST is available only where the tax shortfall is "by reason of" fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; these are jurisdictional facts. Show cause notices must allege such conduct and disclose the material basis for that inference, and must specify proposed amounts without language of final determination. Invocation of extended limitation without these ingredients vitiates proceedings and precludes remand; authorities may pursue recovery under the normal limitation where applicable.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Benami property orders grounded on a recalled precedent must be re-adjudicated without treating that precedent as binding.
    The Tribunal held that where an adjudicatory order under the PBPTA is substantially founded on a Supreme Court judgment that has been recalled on review, that order cannot stand; the correct remedial course is to set aside and remit for de novo adjudication so the Adjudicating Authority may re-examine evidence and apply the law without treating the recalled Ganpati Dealcom decision as binding on the question of the amendments' temporal applicability.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Transition of cess credits: abolished cess balances are dead credits, not eligible for GST transition or cash refunds.
    Unutilised Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess balances whose utilisation was limited to the same cess and whose levies were abolished became dead CENVAT credits; they were not eligible for transition under the exhaustive list in Section 140 and its Explanations, and Section 142(3) only prescribes payment in cash where refund is otherwise due under existing law, not a new substantive right to refund or a means to evade pre GST limitation.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    Bank account freezes: limited temporary freezes permitted on reasonable suspicion, with strict notice, review and three month cap.
    A narrow implied power exists for banks to impose a temporary debit freeze without prior notice when there are reasonable grounds to suspect use of an account for money laundering or cyber fraud; this power must be exercised with same day communication to the accountholder, mandatory intimation to investigative authorities with proof, a one week window for accountholder explanation and bank decision, and a maximum three month continuation absent directions from competent authorities, after which the freeze must be lifted and access to the credit balance restored.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 143(2) notices not following CBDT formats invalidate ensuing scrutiny assessments; computer generation does not cure the defect.
    A scrutiny notice that does not conform to CBDT-prescribed formats-specifically by failing to specify whether selection is for limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny-is not a valid jurisdictional notice; non compliance with the binding CBDT Instruction vitiates the Assessing Officer's authority and renders any consequent scrutiny assessment void ab initio. Computer generation of the notice does not cure the defect. A pure legal challenge to such notice validity may be admitted at the appellate stage where no new facts are required.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported petroleum product: partial testing and non categorical reports cannot sustain classification as high speed diesel under tariff rules.
    Classification requires evidence addressing all IS 1460:2005 parameters or, where full conformity is lacking, a Rule 4 "most akin" analysis showing closest resemblance among candidate headings based on reliable, reasoned laboratory results and expert opinion; partial testing or non categorical reports do not suffice to support penal or confiscatory measures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leases with no purchase option and retained lessor title remain operating leases, not interest-bearing financings.
    Where aircraft lease documentation preserves legal title in the lessor, imposes a return obligation without any purchase option or residual-payment mechanism, and regulatory treatment aligns with operating-lease norms, the arrangement constitutes an operating lease; absent an enforceable transfer of ownership to the lessee at term end, lease rentals cannot be re-characterised as interest for treaty purposes merely because of lease tenure or finance-like pricing.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA complaints: BNSS imposes mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, affecting cognizance and arrest powers in money laundering cases.
    PMLA complaints are now governed by the general complaint-cognizance framework and, for complaints filed after BNSS commencement, by the corresponding BNSS provisions; the BNSS proviso requiring that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is mandatory, and failure to provide that opportunity invalidates the cognizance order. A scheduled predicate offence is a condition precedent to the existence of proceeds of crime and hence to PMLA liability, and once cognizance is taken, enforcement agencies' unilateral arrest powers against named accused are curtailed pending court-authorised custody.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: treaty text treats rental income as taxable in the lessor's residence when aircraft form part of international traffic.
    Whether leased aircraft create a fixed place Permanent Establishment depends on the disposal test: operational control and the right to use and conduct business from the place must vest in the enterprise; mere ownership and protective inspection or repossession rights do not suffice. Profit attribution to any alleged PE requires a FAR based arm's length analysis under Article 7(2), and Article 8(1)'s express inclusion of "operation or rental" covers rental income from aircraft forming part of a fleet used in international traffic, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: MLI PPT not applicable without section 90(1) notification; operating leases and Article 8(1) allocate rental tax to Ireland.
    The Tribunal ruled that Articles 6-7 of the MLI cannot be applied against the India-Ireland DTAA without a specific section 90(1) notification; alternatively, the Revenue failed to show PPT-based abuse. Contractual and regulatory analysis classified the transactions as operating leases; no fixed place PE existed in India; and Article 8(1) allocates taxing rights on rental of aircraft in international traffic to Ireland.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    E-way bill expiry alone cannot prove intent to evade tax; penalties require material indicating actual evasion.
    Expiry or non-generation of an e-way bill, by itself, does not establish intent to evade tax; penal action for movement in contravention requires material indicating diversion, mis-declaration or other indicia of tax risk. Where genuine invoices, correct particulars and evidence explaining delay exist and any fresh e-way bill is produced prior to final orders, authorities must record reasoned findings on intent; absent such material, detention, seizure and confiscation regime cannot be sustained and such misapplication is reviewable on certiorari.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA bail in GST-ITC syndicate case: High Court upholds arrest validity and denies bail under twin conditions.
    The High Court held the PMLA arrest valid because the authorised officer recorded written reasons to believe and furnished written grounds of arrest; it found prima facie involvement in money laundering from corroborated banking, corporate and recorded-statement evidence establishing foundational facts of proceeds of crime; the statutory presumption applied and shifted the burden to the accused; and the mandatory twin bail conditions were not satisfied given the alleged magnitude, sophistication and continuing nature of the GST-ITC fraud, so regular bail was refused.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Wheel loaders classification: tribunal finds front end shovel loaders heading applies; no penalties without mala fide intent.
    Self propelled wheeled machines with front mounted buckets are classifiable under TI 8429 5100 as front end shovel loaders regardless of mining use; invocation of the extended period u/s 28(4) requires evidence of collusion, wilful mis statement or suppression with intent to evade duty, and long standing departmental acceptance plus full disclosure negates mala fides; misclassification or wrong exemption claim alone does not justify confiscation u/s 111(m) or penalties u/ss 114A/114AA without proof of knowingly false description or fraudulent conduct.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Income tax revisional jurisdiction: if AO investigated, PCIT must decide merits or record specific investigative failure, not remand.
    Where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, the revisional authority cannot remand the assessment on a generic claim of inadequate enquiry; it must either record an abject failure to investigate with specific findings or decide the issue on merits in the revisional order and demonstrate error and prejudice.

    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