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 411 "When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      15 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 411 When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document considered is Clause 411 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default." It sets out the time for payment of tax specified in a notice of demand, consequences of non-payment, interest on unpaid amounts, provisions for instalments and discretion to waive or reduce interest, and special rules on foreign remittance constraints. It primarily affects taxpayers who receive notices of demand and tax authorities involved in collection and recovery. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 411 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sits within Division D - Collection and Recovery, and cross-refers to section 289 (notice of demand) of the same Bill and to the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964). It also cross-refers to various sections (287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378) and to section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) for consequences of subsequent orders affecting tax/interest. Definitions: Not stated in the document beyond the references to notices of demand and specified sections; no separate definitional sub-clause is included in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 411 prescribes:

      (1) the time for payment of any amount specified in a notice of demand u/s 289 (except advance tax) - ordinarily within thirty days of service; an Assessing Officer may specify a shorter period with previous approval of the Joint Commissioner when the AO believes allowing the full thirty days would be detrimental to revenue;

      (2) a notice of demand remains valid while related appeal or other proceedings are pending and has the effect accorded by section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964;

      (3) non-payment within the period in (1) attracts simple interest at 1% for every month or part of a month, the period running from the day after the due date until payment;

      (4) no overlapping interest where interest for the same period is charged u/s 398(3) on tax specified in an intimation u/s 399;

      (5) the AO may, on application made before expiry of the due date, extend time or allow instalments subject to conditions;

      (6) where assessments/orders subsequently reduce or increase the taxable amount, corresponding adjustments/refunds or liability for interest follow;

      (7) transitional rule for interest on periods beginning on or before 31 March 1989 and ending after that date-interest for the portion after that date is to be calculated at 1.5% per month;

      (8) the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may, on application, reduce or waive interest if payment causes genuine hardship, default was due to circumstances beyond control, and the assessee has cooperated in inquiry/proceedings;

      (9) orders accepting or rejecting such applications are to be passed within twelve months from the end of the month in which application is received;

      (10) no rejecting order shall be passed unless the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard;

      (11) failure to pay at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice within specified/extended time renders the assessee in default;

      (12) default in any instalment when instalments are allowed results in deemed default of the whole outstanding amount and other instalments become due on the date of the defaulted instalment;

      (13) the AO may, in his discretion and subject to conditions, treat an assessee presenting an appeal u/s 356 or 357 as not in default in respect of the amount in dispute while the appeal remains undisposed;

      (14) where income arises in a foreign country whose laws prohibit/restrict remittance to India, the AO shall not treat the assessee as in default for the portion that cannot be brought to India and continue to treat as not in default until prohibition is removed;

      (15) for purposes of (14) income is deemed brought into India if utilised for expenditure actually incurred by the assessee outside India or if brought into India in any form whether capitalised or not.

      Interpretation

      The text manifests a legislative design to prioritise prompt collection (30-day rule) while providing limited administrative discretion to shorten the period where revenue interest is acute. The interest regime is simple interest at a uniform 1% per month, subject to statutory exceptions and administrative relief. The Bill recognises the continuing validity of recovery proceedings during appellate processes and incorporates cross-references to validation legislation (1964 Act). The inclusion of the 1989 transitional interest rule indicates an intent (in the Bill) to address historically overlapping regimes; the presence of explicit waiver/reduction criteria and procedural safeguards (timeline, hearing) indicates an intent to balance revenue protection with taxpayer hardship considerations.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs: (i) the Assessing Officer may shorten the payment period with prior Joint Commissioner approval; (ii) waiver/reduction of interest is available under specified hardship/cooperation conditions; (iii) instalment default rules deem full liability on single instalment default; (iv) where foreign law prevents remittance, the AO must not treat the taxpayer as in default for the non-remittable portion and must continue that treatment until removal of the restriction; (v) no duplicate interest where another section levies interest for the same period. Thresholds and forms: Not stated in the document (no prescribed forms or numeric thresholds besides interest rate and 30-day period).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A receives a notice of demand u/s 289 and does not pay within 30 days. Simple interest at 1% per month is chargeable from day 31 until payment. If A applied before day 30 for instalments and defaulted on one instalment later, the entire outstanding becomes due on the date of default. (All elements drawn from the text.)
      • Example 2: Taxpayer B receives notice but files an appeal in respect of the amount; the notice remains valid during disposal by the last appellate authority and retains the continuing effect under the 1964 Act. (From the text.)
      • Example 3: Taxpayer C has income in a country that legally prohibits remittance; the Assessing Officer must not treat C as in default for the portion that cannot be brought into India and should continue that non-default treatment until the restriction is lifted. (From the text.)

      Interplay

      Clause 411 expressly cross-refers to section 289 (notice of demand), sections 356/357 (appeals), numerous assessment/revision/rectification sections (287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378) and settlement provisions (section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961), and invokes section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964. This creates direct interplay between assessment outcomes and interest/collection consequences. No additional rules, notifications or forms are specified in the Clause itself. Any detailed procedural aspects-e.g., format of application for instalments or for waiver-are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Transitional interest-rate provision:Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) contains a specific transitional provision at sub-section (7) providing that for any period commencing on or before 31st March, 1989 and ending after that date, interest under sub-section (3) shall, in respect of so much of such period as falls after that date, be calculated at 1.5% per month (Bill: sub-section (7)). The enacted Section 411 text (Income-tax Act, 2025) does not contain this transitional sub-section; instead there is no equivalent historical-rate rule.
        • Practical impact: removal of the historic 1.5% transitional rate means no special higher rate for periods crossing 31 March 1989 is retained in the enacted provision. This is a substantive deletion in the Bill->Act progression. The practical effect is confined to legacy periods; the documents do not state any retroactivity, savings or transitional arrangement beyond the deleted clause.
      • Placement and numbering of waiver/reduction power: In the Bill the discretionary power to reduce or waive interest (subject to conditions) is located at sub-section (8) with accompanying procedural requirements at (9)-(10). In the enacted Section 411 the power to reduce or waive interest appears at sub-section (7) and the procedural timeline and hearing requirements are at (8)-(9).
        • Practical impact: this is a renumbering and slight re-sequencing in the enacted text; substantively the power and its safeguards (timeline for decision, right to be heard) remain present. The document texts do not indicate any change in the scope of the power or different conditions beyond wording variations.
      • Minor drafting and phraseology changes: Examples include (1)(b) where the Bill uses "such lesser period" while the Act uses "such period being a period less than thirty days"; and (3)(a) where the Act adds "comprised in the period" to the description of the monthly interest calculation.
        • Practical impact: these are drafting/clarifying edits. They do not, on their face, change the operative mechanics (30-day default period; 1% simple monthly interest) but may affect interpretive clarity on temporal scope of interest calculation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: strict 30-day compliance window for payment of notices of demand (subject to permitted shortening by AO with Joint Commissioner approval); exposure to simple interest at 1% per month from day after due date until payment; risk of acceleration of full outstanding amount on instalment default; potential continued liability during appellate proceedings since notices remain valid pending disposal.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: taxpayers should retain and produce applications for extension or instalments, evidence supporting hardship or circumstances beyond their control when seeking waiver, proof of cooperation in inquiries, and documentary evidence demonstrating inability to repatriate foreign income where applicable. Specific procedural forms/timelines beyond the twelve-month decision deadline for waiver/reduction orders are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Ordinary payment period for a notice of demand is 30 days; AO may shorten this only with prior Joint Commissioner approval.
      • Non-payment attracts simple interest at 1% per month (or part) from the day after the due date until payment; overlapping interest u/s 398(3) is excluded.
      • On application before due date, AO may extend time or allow instalments; default on any instalment results in deemed default of whole outstanding amount.
      • The Bill includes a transitional rule applying 1.5% monthly interest for periods crossing 31 March 1989; this is present in the Bill text reviewed but may differ in later enactment (see comparative analysis above).
      • The designated Commissioners have power to reduce or waive interest where hardship, circumstances beyond control, and cooperation are established; decision on such application must be made within twelve months from the end of the month of receipt and the assessee must be heard before rejection.
      • Notwithstanding appeals, notices of demand remain valid during pendency and have effect as per the 1964 validation Act.
      • Where foreign law restricts remittance, the AO shall not treat the non-remittable portion as in default and must maintain non-default treatment until restrictions are lifted.

      Full Text:

      Section 411 When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax