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 423 "Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income." 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 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document compared: Section 423 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as appearing in the enacted Act) and Clause 423 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (the Bill text supplied). Both texts deal with interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. The provisions affect taxpayers required to furnish returns, and the income-tax department in calculating and demanding interest. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 423 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (hereinafter "Clause 423 (Bill)"). Subject matter: interest chargeable for defaults in furnishing return of income. Coverage: outlines when simple interest at the rate implicit in the formula I = 1% x A x T becomes payable, defines the starting and ending dates for computation across specified circumstances, prescribes treatment where post-assessment orders alter tax, and defines components included in "tax paid". Definitions or explanations provided in the text: limited to the formula and the Table; the Bill supplies a definition of "tax paid" in sub-section (4)(d) with enumerated items (i)-(vii). No separate definitions section is provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 423 imposes simple interest for defaults in furnishing a return of income. The interest is computed by the formula I = 1% x A x T, where A is the "amount of tax on which interest is payable" (as specified in sub-section (2)) and T is the number of months comprised in the period commencing on the day after the "starting date" and ending on the "ending date" specified in the Table. Sub-section (2) contains a Table that maps specific circumstances to starting date, ending date and the tax base (A) for interest computation. The Table covers four scenarios: (1) return furnished u/s 263(1), (4) or (6) or in response to a notice u/s 268(1) after the due date; (2) no return furnished under the said sections; (3) return required by a notice under an unspecified section issued after certain determinations and furnished late; and (4) where such a notice requires a return and no return is furnished. Sub-section (3) deals with the consequence of orders (under a list of sections) that increase or reduce the tax base for interest, prescribing issuance of notice of demand in prescribed form where interest increases, and refund of excess interest where interest is reduced. Sub-section (4) contains qualifying notes, including exclusions of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax bases, reduction of interest payable by amounts of interest paid u/s 266, and the detailed meaning of "tax paid". Sub-section (5) treats an assessment made for the first time u/s 279 as a "regular assessment" for purposes of the section.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the Bill text: to provide a simple, uniform interest formula for late or non-furnishing of returns and to tie the interest computation periods to concrete events (due date, date of furnishing, date of completion of assessment, dates specified in notices). The Table-driven approach indicates an intent to vary the tax base (A) and the start/end dates according to factual circumstances of how and when returns are filed or not filed. The inclusion of a detailed "tax paid" definition shows an intent to net off various prepayments and credits from the tax base when computing interest. The provision for adjustment upon post-assessment orders (sub-section (3)) manifests an intent to align interest levies with the final assessed tax position.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs or qualifications present in the Bill include:

      • Exclusion of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax base (4)(a)-(b).
      • Reduction of interest payable by interest already paid u/s 266 (4)(c).
      • Specific items constituting "tax paid" (4)(d)(i)-(vii), which serve as offsets against the tax base for interest calculation.
      • Where an assessment is made for the first time u/s 279, it is to be regarded as a regular assessment (5).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A return filed late in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is the due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of furnishing; A is tax on total income as determined u/s 270(1) (if regular assessment not made) or tax determined under regular assessment, reduced by "tax paid". (All other specifics of amounts and dates Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: No return furnished in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of completion of assessment u/s 271; A is tax on total income determined under regular assessment reduced by "tax paid". (Concrete amounts and computation Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 3: Return required by a notice (serial number 3) but furnished after expiry of time allowed under such notice. Starting date is the date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice (Bill text); ending date is date of furnishing; A is amount by which reassessed tax exceeds earlier tax. (The Bill text contains an omission in the cross-reference to the notice section; specifics Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The Bill text expressly references multiple other provisions (sections 263, 268, 270, 271, 279, 280, 266, 267, 287, 288, 289, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378, 206). Interplay with those provisions is central to determining starting/ending dates, the tax base (A), and credits. The Bill, as supplied, contains at least one omitted cross-reference (a missing section number in the Table at serial number 3) and a differing cross-reference for the tax credit clause (206(13) vs the multi-paragraph references in the Act). These differences create potential interpretive issues and could require reconciliation with the substantive provisions of the referenced sections; however, the content of those referenced sections is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Starting date for notice-required returns (serial numbers 3 and 4): The enacted Section 423 (Act) uses "The last date of time allowed under such notice" as the starting date for serial numbers 3 and 4. The Clause 423 of Bill (Old Version) uses "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice" (for both serial numbers 3 and 4 in the Bill).
        • Practical impact: shifting the stated starting date by one day will change the counted months (T) in the formula I = 1% x A x T in some cases; whether the difference produces a material change depends on the method of counting months under the section (not further specified in the documents). It can lead to one additional month being counted in some interpretations, thereby increasing interest liability slightly in some cases.
      • Row 3 starting date wording: In the Act text, for serial number 3 the Starting date is "The last date of time allowed under such notice." The Bill text, for serial number 3, states "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice."
        • Practical impact: same as above; potential to alter the period used for interest computation.
      • Omissions/typographical differences affecting clarity: The Bill's Table entry for serial number 3 contains an apparent omission - "Where return of income is required by a notice u/s issued after..." (the section number is missing). The Act provides the relevant contextual references (Act shows section 280 in related contexts).
      • Practical impact: omission creates ambiguity in the Bill text about which notice provision is referred to; this could cause interpretive uncertainty unless corrected. The Act text does not exhibit that omission in the supplied extract.
      • "Tax paid" definition - tax credit cross-references: The Act's clause (4)(d)(vii) defines "tax paid" to include "any tax credit allowed to be set off as per sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)." The Bill (Old Version) substitutes "(vii) any tax credit allowed to be set off as per section 206(13)."
        • Practical impact: this is a substantive difference in cross-references. If the Bill's singular reference is intended to capture the same set of credits, the drafting does not make that clear. Depending on the actual content of section 206 in the statute (not stated in the document), taxpayers may lose (or gain) certain credits being treated as "tax paid" for interest computation. As the document supplied does not state the content of section 206, the practical effect cannot be fully determined from the text alone.
      • Form of notice of demand: Sub-section (3)(a) in the Act reads "in such form as may be prescribed"; the Bill reads "in the form as prescribed."
        • Practical impact: stylistic/minor drafting difference; both phrases point to prescribed form, but "such form as may be prescribed" is the more conventional legislative formulation. No clear substantive impact in isolation.
      • Other structural/wording differences: Minor variations in punctuation, paragraphing and referential phrases occur across the two texts (for example, use of "the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in such form as may be prescribed specifying the sum payable" vs "shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the form as prescribed specifying the sum payable").
        • Practical impact: primarily drafting and clarity; no express substantive change beyond the items noted above based on the supplied texts.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The precise starting date language (whether the last date of time allowed or the day after that date) will affect calculation of months (T) - which could increase or decrease interest by the formula provided. Taxpayers filing in response to notices should be alert to how the start date is to be computed. Where the Bill's cross-references differ (notably to section 206), taxpayers should verify which tax credits count as "tax paid" for interest computations - the Bill text introduces uncertainty. The omission of a section number in serial number 3 may create avoidable disputes until corrected.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text makes clear that dates of notices, dates of furnishing of returns, dates of completion of assessments and amounts of tax determined at various stages are determinative items. Parties should maintain contemporaneous records showing notice dates, time allowed under notices, dates of filing, assessments and any payments or credits claimed (details of records to be kept Not stated in the document).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 423 (Bill) applies a simple interest formula I = 1% x A x T for defaults in furnishing returns, tying the interest period to specific starting and ending events listed in a Table.
      • There are material drafting differences between the Bill and the enacted Section 423: notably in the exact stated starting dates for notice-driven cases and in the cross-references used to define tax credits included as "tax paid".
      • Shifts in starting date wording (last date vs date immediately following) can alter interest months counted and thus interest liability; the Bill language tends to state the day after, potentially increasing periods in some views.
      • The Bill text contains an omission (missing section reference in serial number 3 of the Table) creating interpretive ambiguity that requires correction or legislative clarification.
      • The Bill lists prescribed mechanisms for adjustment where post-assessment orders alter tax and requires notice of demand or refund accordingly.
      • The provision for reduction of interest by interest already paid u/s 266 and the detailed enumeration of items constituting "tax paid" show an intent to prevent double charging and to net prepayments and credits.

      Full Text:

      Section 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax