Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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