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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 327 "Change in constitution of a firm." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      11 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 327 Change in constitution of a firm.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        Clause 327 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - provision dealing with change in constitution of a firm. It prescribes how an assessing officer should treat a partnership firm for purposes of assessment u/ss 270 or 271 when the firm's constitution changes. It affects taxpayers in partnership form and the tax department. Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: The provision is placed as Clause 327 under the Bill heading "Change in constitution, succession and dissolution" and references assessments u/ss 270 and 271 (these sections are cited as the assessment provisions triggering the rule). The scope covers the treatment of a partnership firm for assessment purposes "where at the time of making an assessment u/s 270 or 271, it is found that a change has occurred in the constitution of a firm." Definitions: The clause sets out, for the purposes of the provision, what constitutes a "change in the constitution" of a firm by enumerating three circumstances. No separate definitions of "firm", "partner", "admitted", or "ceased" are provided in the clause itself. The clause does not supply definitions of "assessment" beyond reference to sections 270 and 271.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        The provision contains three operative parts: (1) an overarching rule that the assessment shall be made on the firm as constituted at the time of making the assessment; (2) an enumerated list defining "change in the constitution" comprising (a) one or more partners ceasing to be partners, (b) admission of one or more new partners subject to a continuity condition that at least one pre-existing partner remains after change, and (c) where all partners continue but there is a change in their respective shares (or the shares of some); and (3) a proviso that sub-section 2(a) shall not apply to a case where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners. The clause is expressly tied to assessment proceedings u/ss 270 and 271 only.

        Interpretation

        The clause reflects a legislative intent to fix the taxable entity for assessment at the point of assessment-making rather than retrospectively when the facts prompting assessment occurred. The operative instruction - "assessment shall be made on the firm as constituted at the time of making the assessment" - indicates that the constitution existing at the assessment time determines who is assessed as the firm. The enumerated circumstances illustrate the types of changes that will trigger application of this rule. The continuity condition that requires at least one continuing pre-change partner when a new partner is admitted signals the legislature's concern to distinguish reorganisations that preserve firm continuity from complete transfers of business or successor entities. The death-dissolution exception indicates that a firm's dissolution by reason of a partner's death should not be treated as a partner-cessation under clause (a) for assessment allocation purposes.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        The only proviso is that sub-section 2(a) does not apply where the firm is dissolved on the death of a partner. There are no other carve-outs, thresholds, temporal rules, or conditions in the clause. The clause does not state whether other forms of succession, amalgamation, or assignment fall within its scope; nor does it address issues of liability of outgoing partners, successor liability, or the tax treatment of unrealised gains on change.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: Partners A, B, C are assessed u/s 270. Before the assessment is made, partner C ceases to be a partner and leaves; the assessment will be made on the firm constituted at the assessment time (i.e., A and B where they remain partners). This is consistent with clause (a). (The document supplies no numerical example; this is a schematic illustration consistent with the text.)
        • Example 2: Partners A and B admit D as a new partner but A continues in the firm. Because at least one pre-existing partner (A) continues, clause (b) applies and the assessment will be made on the firm as constituted when the assessment is made (A, B, D). Note: The document does not address tax consequences for outgoing or incoming partners. Not stated in the document.
        • Example 3: Partners A, B, C keep the same personnel but reallocate profit shares between them; such a change is expressly a change in constitution under clause (c) and the assessment will be on the firm as constituted at assessment time. The clause does not indicate if share changes affecting only profit distribution are to be treated differently for tax attribution between partners. Not stated in the document.

        Interplay

        The clause explicitly references assessment u/ss 270 and 271, but it does not identify any rules, notifications, or circulars that further explain or implement the provision. It does not reference other provisions dealing with succession, transfer of business, or partner liability. Potential interpretive issues may arise in relation to:

        • Determination of the "time of making the assessment" - the clause does not define when assessment is "made" for these sections (for example, original assessment versus reassessment), so interplay with procedural provisions in sections 270/271 and their rules may be required to fix the temporal point.
        • Whether cessation by retirement, retirement by agreement, insolvency of a partner, or transfer of a partner's interest outside formal dissolution falls within clause (a) - the clause lists cessation generically; further statutory or case law guidance would be required.
        • Interaction with provisions concerning transfer of assets, successor liability, or clubbing of income is not addressed in the clause and remains to be read across other parts of the Code. Not stated in the document.

        Comparison of Differences and Practical Impact

        Clause 327 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (labelled "Section 327") and Clause 327 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (labelled "Clause 327"). The two provisions are substantively similar but differ in the drafting and ordering of sub-clauses describing what constitutes a "change in the constitution" of a firm.

        • Difference in sub-clause structure: The Bill version (Clause 327) lists three distinct circumstances (partners ceasing to be partners; admission of new partners subject to a continuity condition; change in partners' shares) as separate paragraphs (a), (b), (c). The Act version (Section 327) consolidates the first two situations into paragraph (a) - "if one or more of the partners cease to be partners or one or more new partners are admitted, subject to the condition..." - and keeps change in shares as paragraph (b).
          • Practical impact: The consolidation in the Act text signals no substantive narrowing or broadening of coverage; rather it appears to be a drafting reorganisation. Both texts require at least one continuing partner when a new partner is admitted (continuity condition) and both treat changes in partners' shares as a change in constitution. The only practical effect likely to arise is on interpretive clarity: the Bill's separate enumeration may be marginally clearer when construing whether ceasing and admission are distinct events; the consolidated Act version ties cessation and admission together in the same limb. There is no express change to scope, exceptions (other than the death dissolution carve-out), or the operative assessment rule.
        • Other textual elements: Both texts contain identical provisions for assessment timing (assessment to be made on the firm as constituted at the time of making assessment) and identical proviso excluding dissolution on death from the operation of the partner-cessation limb. No additional conditions, thresholds, or procedural rules are present in either text.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers in partnership form should ensure that changes in partner composition or profit-sharing ratios are documented and that the constitution of the firm at the time of assessment is clearly ascertainable. The clause places emphasis on the constitution at the point of assessment rather than at the time of the underlying income; this may affect who is assessed and for what periods.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: Partnerships should maintain contemporaneous records of partnership deeds, minutes evidencing admission/retirement of partners, dates of effect of share changes, and notices to tax authorities, so that the firm composition at assessment time can be proven. The clause does not specify particular documents or forms to be produced. Not stated in the document.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 327 instructs that where a change in constitution of a firm is found at the time of assessment u/ss 270 or 271, the assessment is to be made on the firm as it exists at the time of assessment.
        • "Change in constitution" is defined to include partner cessation, admission of new partners (subject to at least one continuing partner), and changes in partners' shares.
        • The clause excludes dissolution on account of a partner's death from the operation of the partner-cessation limb.
        • The Bill version and the subsequently presented Act text differ only in the drafting arrangement of the enumerated circumstances; there is no substantive change to scope in the texts considered.
        • The clause is silent on detailed procedural implementation, timing nuances for assessment, successor liability, and treatment of outgoing partners' tax obligations - those matters would require reference to other statutory provisions or interpretive guidance. Not stated in the document.
        • Practical compliance requires careful documentation of partner changes and share allocations to establish the constitution at assessment time.

        Full Text:

        Section 327 Change in constitution of a firm.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax