Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Tax Assessments: Assessment Orders and Legal Jurisdiction
    Case Laws Income Tax
    "Sales Tax Subsidy and Its Classification in Income Tax: Revenue or Capital receipt
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Trust Registration and Tax Exemptions in India: rejection of registration u/s 12AB for want of supp...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Condonation of Delay in Taxation in filing applications for registration u/s 12A/12AA:
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Procedural Timelines in Tax Exemption Applications
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mandatory Draft Assessment Orders for Foreign Entities and Section 144C Compliance: A Legal Perspect...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Impact of PAN Mismatch in Corporate Tax Filings and Resolving Name Discrepancies in Tax Document...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing the Dispute Over Section 14A Disallowance and Interest under Section 244A in Income Tax Ap...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Condonation of Delay in Tax Refund: Analyzing the Right to Interest
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Balancing Corporate Operations and Tax Obligations: High Court's Interim Order on Share Buyback Taxa...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 80P and Cooperative Societies: Unraveling the Tribunal's Interpretation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Decision on Tax Evasion Case: An Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Accommodation Entries: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    A Judicial Perspective on Section 148A of the Income Tax Act: Amended Reassessment Provisions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Threshold set for monetary limits in filing appeals by Revenue: A policy shift towards reducing liti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court's Stance on Penalty Notices in Tax Law: A Balance Between Procedure and Justice
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Decoding the Penalty Provisions under Section 271(1)(c): Analyzing the Fine Line Between Concealment...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: Between Legal Intent and Factual Circ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessing Penalties for non-filing of ITR: A Deep Dive into Section 271F of the Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Addition after survey option as Unaccounted income: Burden to prove and evidence.
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional competence in tax assessment is essential; assessments by non authorized officers risk invalidation under procedural rules.
The dispute focuses on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and whether an assessment framed by an officer lacking pecuniary competence is valid; it emphasizes that compliance with jurisdictional limits and the procedural step under Section 143(2), together with principles of procedural fairness, determine the assessment's legality.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sales tax subsidy classification: determine capital versus revenue nature to decide income taxability based on purpose and character.
Whether a sales tax concession under the trade tax statute is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt for income tax purposes turns on the character, purpose and timing of the grant; capital receipts relate to capital formation and are generally non taxable, while revenue receipts arise from regular business operations and are taxable. The inquiry requires statutory interpretation of the trade tax exemption, consideration of legislative intent to incentivise production, and comparison with precedent on subsidy characterisation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Trust registration under Section 12AB requires evidential compliance; procedural default may prompt re-adjudication and compliance opportunity.
Rejection of registration under Section 12AB arose from insufficient documentary evidence of charitable activity and statutory compliance, and the assessee's non-appearance at the hearing. Emphasising natural justice and the welfare character of exemption provisions, the appellate direction remitted the matter for fresh adjudication to permit the assessee an opportunity to cure evidentiary deficiencies and establish entitlement to tax-related recognition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of delay in tax registration: discretion should favour merits while distinguishing individual acts from entity liability.
Condonation of delay in filing for charitable-registration status must be exercised liberally to secure substantive justice, examining the causes of delay and avoiding punishment of an entity for acts attributable to an individual. Revision of assessment-related orders demands proof that alleged irregularities affected the entity, and a tribunal's factual conclusions are only overturned for perversity if they lack evidentiary support or are manifestly unreasonable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation in tax-exemption applications: tribunal permits consideration of late Form 10AB filings where circulars create timing ambiguity.
The Tribunal addressed ambiguity in CBDT circulars about time limits for filing Form No.10AB under the 80G framework, recognized practical difficulties for older trusts complying with a rigid six month rule, and applied the principle of condonation of delay-relying on precedent-to require reconsideration by the CIT(Exemption) so that procedural timelines are balanced with substantial justice.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Draft assessment procedure: non-issuance of mandatory draft order can invalidate assessments for foreign entities.
The note explains that foreign companies fall within the category of eligible assessee for the draft-assessment procedure, which requires the assessing officer to issue a draft assessment order allowing objections before finalizing assessment; it emphasizes that failure to comply with this procedure can vitiate the final assessment and that appellate precedents treat such procedural lapses as legally significant.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
PAN-name mismatch in tax filings: liberal administrative relief enables correction where error was inadvertent and non-advantageous.
The dispute arose from a corporate taxpayer filing an income tax return under an outdated company name despite having the correct PAN, resulting in invalidation of the return for failure to rectify within prescribed time. Key legal issues address the scope of administrative discretion under Section 119 to condone delay, the meaning of genuine hardship, and the role of PAN as a unique identifier when names diverge. The court favored a liberal, purposive approach allowing administrative correction of the company name where the error was non-deliberate and no advantage was gained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 14A disallowance for stock in trade clarified; refund interest under Section 244A must be applied before adjustments.
The Tribunal held that where investments are held as stock in trade by a bank, disallowance under Section 14A is not appropriate because such holdings are business related trading assets rather than investments to earn exempt dividends; additionally, for Section 244A interest on refunds, interest payable to the assessee must be computed and applied before making adjustments against tax, so earlier refund interest should not be deducted when calculating refund interest due.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Right to interest on tax refunds when delay is condoned depends on whether delay is attributable to the taxpayer.
Right to interest on tax refunds where delay has been condoned turns on whether the delay is attributable to the taxpayer; administrative lapses such as failure to issue TDS documentation or inform the taxpayer are central to entitlement. Precedent imposing an obligation to refund public money received without right, including interest, is applied against provisions limiting interest for belated claims, requiring interpretation of circulars and consistent administrative guidance to protect taxpayer fairness.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Share buyback taxation: characterisation as dividend or capital gain shapes interim security measures to protect tax recovery.
Whether consideration paid by a company for purchase of its own shares should be treated as a dividend or as capital gain was contested, focusing on the interaction between the additional tax on distributed income and the special capital gains regime for buybacks; the court identified substantial questions of law about the tribunal's classification and ordered provisional financial security measures - partial deposit and property security - with conditional release of liens upon compliance.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction under section 80P clarifies cooperative societies' banking activity income treatment versus investment income for tax purposes.
Eligibility for cooperative tax deductions depends on the substantive character of activities: income integral to a society's banking operations qualifies for the banking-related deduction, while income from investments or dividends-including dividends from unlisted equities-must be assessed under provisions applicable to investment income and not as banking business income.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reassessment proceedings: disputed factual issues must be decided by assessment authorities, limiting writ-stage factual review.
The Supreme Court's non-interference upholds the principle that disputed factual issues in income-tax reassessment proceedings-including allegations of accommodation entries-are to be decided by the Assessing Officer on merits, not by a writ court, thereby restricting premature factual adjudication in writ jurisdiction and reinforcing the procedural role of assessment authorities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reassessment under Section 148A: disputed factual issues on accommodation entries directed to the assessing officer for factual determination.
The High Court required detailed scrutiny of alleged accommodation entries and the genuineness of share transactions under the reassessment procedure, noting taxpayers' disclosure of income as Short Term Capital Gains. Applying precedents on judicial review, the court held that disputed factual questions and the procedural validity of reassessment are to be determined by the Assessing Officer rather than in writ proceedings, absent evidence of arbitrariness or limitation breach.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 148A preliminary enquiry limits inquiry to existence of information before reassessment and preserves assessee procedural rights.
Preliminary enquiries under the post amendment reassessment procedure require the assessing officer to possess tangible information suggesting escaped income and to afford the assessee an opportunity to respond before issuing a reassessment notice; the officer's inquiry at this stage is limited to ascertaining existence of such information and does not adjudicate the merits, while procedural protections-objection, access to information, and appellate remedies-remain available.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Monetary limits for appeals reshape Revenue litigation strategy, reducing low stake appeals and encouraging selective prosecution.
The court treated CBDT instructions on monetary limits as possessing binding effect within the statutory appeals framework, harmonising the right to appeal with monetary limit provisions and applying policy considerations from the National Litigation Policy to limit low stake Revenue appeals; this approach affects Revenue litigation strategy, judicial resource allocation, taxpayer relief, and invites possible legislative clarification regarding retrospective or prospective application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Penalty notice specificity: lack of clarity requires proof of actual prejudice before challenging tax penalties.
Penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 must clearly communicate the specific charge to secure a fair hearing; failure to object during proceedings may constitute acquiescence. Procedural defects do not invalidate penalty proceedings unless the affected party proves actual prejudice, and the burden of demonstrating such prejudice lies with the party alleging breach of natural justice.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be presumed from mere disallowance; defective notices and bona fide claims constrain penalties.
Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income requires proof of knowingly misstated or concealed particulars; mere disallowance of a claim does not suffice. A bona fide, arguable claim should not automatically attract penalty, and a defective or unadapted notice that fails to demonstrate application of mind can vitiate penalty proceedings.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Furnishing inaccurate particulars: claiming non existent depreciation can attract penalty even without willful concealment; notice must be specific.
Claiming depreciation on non existent assets constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the penalty provision; proof of willful concealment is not a necessary ingredient for civil penalty liability. Notices initiating penalty proceedings must be specific and clear to meet natural justice requirements, and factual admissions and reversal of disputed claims are operative in determining whether inaccurate particulars were furnished.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Failure to file return on time triggers penalty under Section 271F even if return is later filed after reassessment notice.
The summary addresses penalty liability for failing to file the original income tax return by the statutory due date, noting that later filing in response to a reassessment notice does not excuse the late original filing. It emphasizes that initiation of penalty proceedings after completion of reassessment does not automatically vitiate the penalty, and that absence of a valid reason for delay sustains penal consequences under the provision for non-filing.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden to prove unaccounted income: additions require admissible evidence, not assumptions from survey reports.
Burden to prove alleged unaccounted income lies with the revenue; additions based on survey findings and an Inspector's report to re fix sale prices must be supported by admissible evidence. The taxpayer used the percentage of completion method for construction income, and impounded documents from a statutory survey were central to the dispute. Additions founded mainly on assumptions or inspector notes, without corroborative proof linking seized material to unexplained receipts, are susceptible to appellate review.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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)

Topic Old 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

Acts Income Tax