Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax