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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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