Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 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