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 ✕
🔎 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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA and Taxability of Ground Handling and Engineering Service Receipts
    Cancellation of GST Registration for Continuous Non-Filing of Returns under Section 29 and Rule 22
    Finality of Approved Resolution Plans and Extinguishment of Pending Operational-Creditor Claims unde...
    Case Laws Customs
    Interest on Refund of Amounts Deposited under Protest during Customs Investigation
    Case Laws Indian Laws
    Admitted Cheque Signature and Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt under Sections 118 and 139 of ...
    Case Laws Customs
    Principal Function, Network Capability and Customs Classification of Composite Electronic Devices (G...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Enhanced Tax Rate Under Section 115BBE for Financial Year 2016-17: Classification of Unexplained Inc...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrenchment Compensation under Section 10(10B) and Leave Encashment Exemption under Section 10(10AA...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Renewal of Registration under Section 12AB for Charitable Hospitals Engaged in Medical Relief: Retro...
    Contractual Reimbursement of Incremental GST on Works Contracts and the Statutory-Contractual Divide
    Case Laws Customs
    Waiver of Late Fee on Supplementary Bills of Entry under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962: Exc...
    Detention and Confiscation of Inter-State Consignments: Territorial Limits on State GST Officers - J...
    Common Show Cause Notices across Multiple Financial Years: Scope of Sections 73 and 74 and Limitatio...
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under the CGST Act: Supplier Tax Non-Payment and Recipient ITC Claims: ...
    Actionable Claims, Contingent Winnings and Gross Valuation in GST on Gaming Transactions
    Invocation of Extended Limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act: Foundational Facts, Prima Facie ...
    Assignment of Leasehold Rights in Industrial Plots under the CGST Act: Distinguishing Lease Services...
    Service of GST Show Cause Notices and Orders through the Common Portal: Validity of Service, Hearing...
    News GST
    Bill-To Ship-To E-Way Bill Compliance, Portal Closure and Transit Controls: GST E-Way Bills: Rule 13...
    E-Way Bill Requirements Under Rule 138: GST E-Way Bill Framework for Movement of Goods, Transit Docu...
❯❯
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
Article 8 treaty protection excludes independent third-party ground handling and engineering receipts lacking a direct transportation nexus.
Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA confines protection to profits derived from treaty-defined international aircraft operations and qualifying participation in air-transport pools. Engineering and ground-handling services supplied to other airlines are independently organised commercial services where they lack a direct nexus to the enterprise's own international transportation. A qualifying pool requires substantive evidence of its legal and commercial structure, including reciprocal arrangements and settlement mechanisms; industry arrangements or aviation-sector relevance alone are insufficient.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
GST registration cancellation for return default remains reversible only through complete, time-bound filing and payment compliance.
GST registration may be cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns, but cancellation does not discharge pre-cancellation tax liabilities. Before cancellation, Rule 22(4) requires proceedings to be dropped where the taxpayer files all pending returns and pays tax, interest and late fee. Post-cancellation revocation under Rule 23 is a separate mechanism requiring complete filing and payment compliance within the applicable time limits. Conditional restoration may be appropriate where liabilities are fully regularised, while absence of fraud does not excuse default or replace statutory compliance.
Case Laws IBC
Show AI Summary
Resolution-plan finality extinguishes unresolved operational-creditor proceedings unless the plan expressly preserves liability and payment rights.
Finality of an approved resolution plan fixes the treatment of corporate-debtor liabilities and binds creditors within the corporate insolvency resolution process. A disputed or unadjudicated right to payment may be submitted as a claim during CIRP, but does not independently preserve civil or arbitral proceedings after plan approval. Where the final claims list and the plan provide for discharge of pre-effective-date liabilities and extinguishment of related proceedings, unresolved operational-creditor claims survive only if the plan expressly preserves them through a defined payment or reservation mechanism.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Investigation deposits: refund interest may differ from statutory appellate pre-deposit interest when the underlying demand fails.
Interest on the refund of amounts deposited under protest during a customs investigation depends on the legal character of the payment, rather than its later appropriation towards a differential-duty demand. An amount paid pending investigation does not become a statutory appellate pre-deposit merely because part of the overall payment is treated as a pre-deposit for appeal purposes. The rate fixed at 6% for Section 129EE is confined to amounts deposited under Section 129E, while an investigation deposit requires assessment under the applicable refund framework and binding jurisdictional precedent.
Case Laws Indian Laws
Show AI Summary
Admitted cheque signatures trigger presumptions of consideration and enforceable debt, requiring evidence-based probable defences in dishonour proceedings.
Once execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, consideration must be presumed and the holder must be presumed to have received the cheque towards discharge, wholly or partly, of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The drawer may rebut these presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but the defence must have a factual foundation. Bare denials, unsupported misuse allegations, and blank-cheque or security-cheque assertions ordinarily do not displace the presumptions. Financial capacity becomes material only upon a credible, specific, and evidence-based challenge.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Bluetooth headset classification turns on active wireless network communication, not audio form, when determining principal function and essential character.
Bluetooth-enabled personal audio devices are classified by objective technical function rather than wearable form, product label, audio output or microphone. Heading 8517 applies where Bluetooth capability makes the device an active wireless-network apparatus that receives, converts and transmits voice or data; heading 8518 covers ordinary headphones or earphones carrying only audio signals. Classification begins with the heading terms and relevant notes, with essential character and principal function applied only through the sequential General Rules where competing headings remain.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Unexplained-income taxation requires valid deeming classification, while enhanced special rates apply prospectively under the stated effective-date framework.
Section 115BBE applies only where income is validly assessed under the deeming provisions for unexplained income; a surrender, disclosure or addition alone is insufficient. The assessing authority must identify the relevant provision and reject the explanation of nature and source where required. The special computation denies deductions, allowances and loss set-off against qualifying income. The Rajasthan High Court treated the enhanced rate introduced with effect from 1 April 2017 as prospective, preserving the earlier rate for financial year 2016-17. Penalty under section 271AAC depends on a valid section 115BBE determination.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Substance-over-form treatment of VRS compensation can place retrenchment-linked payments within the distinct full-exemption framework for approved workforce reduction schemes.
Tax treatment of VRS-labelled separation payments depends on their substantive character. Payments connected with Government-supported workforce restructuring may qualify as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B), rather than as voluntary-retirement compensation under section 10(10C), where the special-protection requirements are satisfied. Leave encashment must be examined separately under section 10(10AA), according to employee status and the applicable conditions or notified limit. Settlement components should be segregated and supported by scheme documents, approvals, computations, and tax records.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Charitable hospital renewal depends on genuine medical relief, charitable application of income, and material regulatory compliance.
Renewal of section 12AB registration for a charitable hospital depends on genuine activities in furtherance of medical relief, application of income and assets to charitable objects, and compliance with other laws only where material to those objects. Receipts, premium facilities, tariff differentials, sophisticated infrastructure and professional management do not alone negate charitable status. Other-law non-compliance requires attention to the specified-violation framework and competent regulatory determinations. Retrospective cancellation is distinct from refusing renewal and requires an independent statutory and factual foundation, with reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Contractual GST reimbursement in works contracts depends on tax-risk clauses and cannot alter statutory compliance obligations.
GST liability for a works contractor is governed by statute, while reimbursement of incremental GST from an employer depends on the contract's allocation of tax risk. An inclusive-tax clause must be read with change-in-law, price-adjustment, tender and amendment terms. Contract-wise reconciliation of pre-transition and post-transition work may support a supplementary agreement and revised GST-inclusive value where contractual entitlement exists. It cannot alter statutory valuation, return, limitation, interest or penalty requirements, which remain governed by GST law.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delayed supplementary Bills of Entry requires a reasoned waiver assessment, not automatic system-generated late charges.
Late-presentation charges under Section 46(3) require the proper officer to be satisfied that no sufficient cause existed for delayed filing. Regulation 4(3) prescribes the late-charge framework and permits waiver where the reasons for delay are satisfactory. A delayed supplementary Bill of Entry for excess cargo is not automatically liable or automatically exempt; the assessment depends on timely original filing, linkage of the excess cargo to the same consignment, prompt amendment efforts, absence of importer fault, bona fides and duty compliance. Electronic calculation cannot substitute for a reasoned determination on sufficient cause.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Territorial GST jurisdiction limits detention and confiscation of inter-State consignments when the intercepting State lacks fiscal nexus.
Physical presence of goods in an intermediate State therefore does not alone create authority to detain, seize, penalise or confiscate. Cross-empowerment is functional and taxpayer-linked, preserving the single-interface administrative structure without creating geographically unlimited enforcement power. Where verification establishes that both origin and destination lie outside the intercepting State, the officer may verify documents, identify and record apparent discrepancies, and communicate them to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee, but lacks coercive jurisdiction over a pure transit supply.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Consolidated GST show cause notices may cover multiple financial years, while each demand component remains independently subject to limitation.
Sections 73 and 74 do not expressly bar a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years. The expressions "for any period" and "such periods" support consolidation, while financial-year references in the limitation provisions govern the deadline for adjudication orders rather than the scope of notice issuance. Each component demand must independently satisfy applicable limitation requirements. Section 74 requires disclosed material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax; its extended limitation is not automatic.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Supplier tax payment remains a substantive input tax credit condition, requiring reversal and allowing re-availment after compliance.
Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act makes actual payment of tax to the Government a substantive condition for input tax credit. The conditions under Section 16(2) operate cumulatively, and invoice reflection, receipt of supplies, or supplier return filing do not independently establish tax payment. Section 41 requires reversal of credit where the supplier has not paid tax, with re-availment allowed after payment. Rule 37A prescribes reversal and re-availment where the supplier fails to furnish the corresponding GSTR-3B within the prescribed period.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
GST valuation of stake-based gaming treats committed stakes as consideration for taxable actionable claims, irrespective of skill.
GST on stake-based gaming applies to the supply of actionable claims where money or money's worth is committed to an uncertain outcome in an organised betting or gambling arrangement. Skill in the underlying game does not remove the stake-based character of the transaction. Participants acquire contingent beneficial interests in pooled movable property, and committed stakes become consideration for participation. The platform is the supplier where it controls pooling, participation, gameplay and payouts. Gross stake valuation applies unless a statutory deduction is authorised, with specialised valuation mechanisms governing online gaming and casinos.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Extended GST limitation requires disclosed prima facie material linking tax shortfall to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression.
Section 74 permits extended GST limitation only where available material supports a rational prima facie view that a tax shortfall, erroneous refund or wrongful credit arose by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Final proof is not required at initiation, but suspicion or bare statutory labels are insufficient. Prior scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice communications may provide the factual foundation if actually communicated and linked to the notice. The notice and final order must preserve fair opportunity, disclose the material basis, and remain within the grounds stated.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Complete assignment of industrial leasehold rights can fall outside GST when it transfers the entire proprietary estate.
A complete assignment of an industrial lessee's entire leasehold interest, together with the building on the plot, is distinguished from leasing, renting, or sub-leasing. Where the assignor retains no reversionary interest or continuing right to earn rent, the consideration is for transfer of proprietary rights constituting benefits arising out of land. Schedule II classification of an original lease as a service does not govern the subsequent absolute assignment. Section 7(2), read with Schedule III, excludes a qualifying transfer of immovable-property benefits from the scope of supply.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Common Portal service requires effective access to complete GST notices and orders, preserving hearing rights and appellate limitation.
GST service through the Common Portal is an express statutory mode, but portal availability must be distinguished from effective service of an adjudicatory communication. Rule 142 preserves the distinction between a substantive show cause notice or order and its electronic summary in FORM GST DRC-01 or DRC-07. Electronic summaries do not, without more, demonstrate communication of complete allegations, grounds, facts and reasons. Portal-based service must be assessed by statutory compliance, accessibility of the complete communication, and the taxpayer's real opportunity to respond, particularly where appellate limitation is involved.
News GST
Show AI Summary
E-way bill compliance strengthens traceability through Ship-To GSTIN capture, voluntary closure, and disciplined transit controls.
Rule 138 and Rule 138A require pre-movement e-way bill generation, carriage of the prescribed invoice or challan documents, and distance-based validity, with cancellation confined to cases where goods are not transported as declared. The portal advisory adds mandatory Ship-To GSTIN capture in Bill-To/Ship-To transactions and a voluntary post-delivery closure facility, while circular guidance treats transporter godowns as an additional place of business when declared by the recipient. Enforcement under Section 129 and Section 130 distinguishes detention for transit contravention from confiscation linked to intent to evade tax, and minor e-way bill defects are described as technical lapses rather than automatic proof of evasion.
Act Rules GST
Show AI Summary
E-way bill compliance under GST rules governs prior movement information, transit documents, validity, cancellation, and special goods regimes.
Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 governs the e-way bill system for movement of goods and requires prior electronic information before movement begins in specified cases, generally where consignment value exceeds fifty thousand rupees. The rule allocates responsibility for Part A and Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 among registered persons, authorised transporters, e-commerce operators, courier agencies and fallback transporters, while also covering special cases such as job work, handicraft goods, consolidated movement and transport by road, rail, air or vessel. Rule 138A specifies the documents that must accompany the conveyance, Rule 138 provides validity, cancellation and exemption rules, and Rule 138F creates a special intra-State regime for notified precious goods.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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)

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