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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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