Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 356 "Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals)." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      13 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 356 Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 356 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (hereafter "Clause 356 (Old)"). It sets out appealability to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against certain orders of Assessing Officers below the rank of Joint Commissioner. It matters to assessees and the tax department (appeals cadre); affected parties include individual and entity taxpayers, and assessing/deductor/collector authorities where specified. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 356 (Old) is placed in Chapter XVIII (APPEALS, REVISIONS AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS), Part A.- Appeals, I.-Appeals to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). It addresses appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). Definitions: the clause includes a definition of "status" by reference to section 2(77). Other definitions or scope-limiting language: Not stated in the document beyond the text of Clause 356 itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 356 (Old) provides that any assessee aggrieved by specified orders of an Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner) may appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The enumerated appealable orders under sub-section (1) are:

      • (a) Intimation u/s 270(1) or 399(1) where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments;
      • (b) Order u/s 270(10) or 271 where the assessee objects to assessed income, determined tax, computed loss, or status;
      • (c) Order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s 279;
      • (d) Order u/s 398;
      • (e) Order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI;
      • (f) Order u/s 287 or 288 amending any of the orders or intimations in clauses (a) to (e).

      Sub-section (2) bars appeals where the impugned order is passed by or with the prior approval of an income-tax authority above the rank of Deputy Commissioner.

      Sub-section (3) empowers the Board (or income-tax authority authorised by the Board) to transfer appeals between Commissioner (Appeals) and Joint Commissioner (Appeals), with the transferee continuing from the stage at which it was transferred.

      Sub-section (4) mandates that where an appeal is transferred under sub-section (3), the appellant shall be given an opportunity of being reheard.

      Sub-section (5) permits the Central Government to notify a scheme to dispose of appeals expeditiously "by eliminating the interface between the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellant, to the extent technologically feasible" and to direct that provisions relating to jurisdiction and procedure "shall not apply or shall apply with exceptions, modifications and adaptations."

      Sub-section (6) allows the Board to specify that any provisions of this section shall not apply to any case or class of cases.

      Sub-section (7) defines "status" by reference to section 2(77).

      Interpretation

      The text prioritises a statutory right of appeal for assessees from subordinate assessing officers' orders to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) within specified categories. The presence of transfer powers (sub-section (3)) and rehearing requirement (sub-section (4)) suggests legislative intent to permit administrative flexibility while preserving procedural fairness. The scheme power in sub-section (5) reflects an intent to modernise and streamline appeal disposal (including technological interface reduction), and to permit modifications of jurisdictional/procedural rules to achieve that aim. Beyond these textual indicators, legislative purpose or debates are Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key exceptions included within the clause:

      • Sub-section (2): No appeal to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) if the order was passed by or with prior approval of an authority above Deputy Commissioner.
      • Sub-section (5): Central Government may supersede certain procedural/jurisdictional provisions via notified scheme.
      • Sub-section (6): Board may carve out cases or classes of cases to which the section will not apply.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer objects to an adjusting entry in an intimation u/s 270(1) - under Clause 356 (Old) they may appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). (Illustrative facts not detailed in the document.)
      • Example 2: A taxpayer dissatisfied with a reassessment order u/s 279 - appealable to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). (Not stated in the document whether time limits or form are prescribed.)

      Interplay

      Clause 356 (Old) cross-refers to multiple other provisions (sections 270(1), 399(1), 270(10), 271, 279, 287, 288, 398, Chapter XXI penalties, and section 2(77)). It creates transferability with Commissioner (Appeals) and contemplates a Central Government scheme that may alter application of other provisions of the Act relating to jurisdiction and procedure. Specific Rules/Notifications/Circulars that interpret or implement these powers are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Clause 356 (Old) and Section 356 (Act)

      Summary of textual differences and their practical impact (based strictly on the two provided texts):

      • Who may appeal: Clause 356 (Old) uses the phrase "Any assessee, aggrieved by ..." (Document 2). Section 356 (Act) expands the class to "Any assessee or any deductor or any collector, aggrieved by ..." (Document 1).
        • Practical impact: the Act expressly allows deductors and collectors to appeal; the Bill's older text limited appeals explicitly to assessees only. This expansion in the Act broadens standing to appeal to include persons who operate as deductors/collectors, increasing potential appellants and workload for the appellate authority.
      • Clause (a) - nature of objection: Clause 356 (Old) states "where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments"; Section 356 (Act) states "where the assessee or deductor or collector objects to the adjustments made therein."
        • Practical impact: the Act clarifies and modernises language, aligning with inclusion of deductors/collectors and framing objection to adjustments already made ("adjustments made therein") rather than merely "making of adjustments," which may narrow ambiguity about timing/context of objection.
      • Sub-section (1) opening phrase and inclusivity of clauses: Clause 356 (Old) lists only "Any assessee, aggrieved..." and the clause (f) refers to "any of the orders or intimations in clauses (a) to (e)." Section 356 (Act) mirrors the structure but, because it includes deductor/collector, clause (f) references clauses (a) to (e) similarly.
        • Practical impact: principally the same technical catch-all for amendments to orders; effect depends on expanded class of appellants in the Act.
      • Sub-section (3)(a) drafting order and punctuation: Clause 356 (Old) text reads that Board may transfer "any appeal filed against an order referred to in sub-section (1) and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeal, which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals);" Section 356 (Act) reverses subordinate phrase order: "any appeal filed against an order referred to in sub-section (1), which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeal and which is so pending, to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals);"
        • Practical impact: mostly drafting clarity; Section 356 (Act) is marginally clearer about pendency and connected matters, reducing potential ambiguity over what may be transferred.
      • Definition of "status": Clause 356 (Old) states "In this section, 'status' means the category of person as defined in section 2(77) ..." while Section 356 (Act) states "For the purposes of this section and section 357, 'status' means the category of person as defined in section 2(77) ..."
        • Practical impact: the Act expressly links the meaning to section 357 as well; this ties interpretive clarity across adjacent provisions and may affect cross-reference interpretation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The clause delineates which subordinate assessing officer orders are appealable; practitioners must map disputes to the listed heads (intimations/assessment/reassessment/penalties/amendments). The allowance for transfers and scheme-based alterations means uncertainty may arise as to which forum will hear the appeal; clients should monitor Board notifications and Central Government schemes. Time limits, forms, or procedural requirements are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the appealability of adjustments and amended orders, maintaining clear audit trails for adjustments in intimations (section 270(1)/399(1)), reasons for reassessment, and any correspondence authorising amendments u/ss 287/288 will be important. The document itself does not prescribe specific records.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 356 (Old) grants a statutory right of appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for assessees against specified orders of Assessing Officers below Joint Commissioner rank.
      • The provision enumerates specific appealable orders: intimations involving adjustments, orders under specified assessment and penalty sections, and amendments u/ss 287/288.
      • Appeals are barred where the impugned order was passed by or with prior approval of an authority above Deputy Commissioner.
      • The Board/Central Government are empowered to transfer appeals between appellate authorities and to notify schemes that may alter procedural and jurisdictional rules, including technological interface elimination.
      • The clause defines "status" by reference to section 2(77), but other interpretive aids, time-limits, forms, and procedural details are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 356 Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax