Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (PCIT/CIT) for the cancellation of registration/approval

      1 February, 2022

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

       

      3.3 Reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner (PCIT/CIT) for the cancellation of registration/approval:

      a) The following issues related to the process of approval or registration, or cancellation or withdrawal thereof, have been noticed, namely:-

      i) Registration or approval of non-genuine trusts or institution under automated approval system:

      First and second provisos to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act were substituted by new provisos by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. These provisos provided that the application for the approval of any trust or institution under the first regime, shall be made to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and such Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall grant approval after examination of the application. Earlier such applications were required to be filed before the prescribed authority. Similarly, provisions of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A provide that application for the trusts or institution under the second regime shall be made to the principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The provisional registrations or provisional approval or re-registrations or approvals in certain cases, under these clauses, are granted in an automated manner and the respective rules have been amended accordingly. It is essential to ensure that non-genuine trusts or institutions do not get exemption provided by these provisions.

      ii) Differences in the provisions related to reference for the cancellation of trusts under the both the regimes:

      Provisions of sub-section (3) of section 143 provide that no order under this subsection shall be made, denying the benefits of clause (23C) of section 10, unless the Assessing Officer has intimated the Central Government or prescribed authority the contravention of the provisions of sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 and approval granted to such trust or institution has been rescinded. There is no such provision in cases of trusts or institutions under second regime.

      iii) No time limit prescribed for the PCIT/CIT to decide on references for the withdrawal of approval:

      For the trusts or institutions under the first regime, the provisions for making reference by the Assessing Officer to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner are contained in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and the time limitation for the completion of assessment is extended as per the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to section 153. Presently, there is no time limit for such Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to decide on such reference.

      b) In order to address the above issues, it is proposed to amend the provisions of section 12AB and fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act as follows:

      (I) Sub-section (4) of section 12AB of the Act is proposed to be substituted with a new sub-section (4) to provide that where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 12AB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently,

      (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year;

      (b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 for any previous year, or

      (c) such case has been selected in accordance with the risk management strategy, formulated by the Board from time to time, for any previous year, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall-

       (i) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiry as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the occurrence or otherwise of any specified violation;

      (ii) pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violation have taken place;

      (iii) pass an order in writing refusing to cancel the registration of such trust or institution, if he is not satisfied about the occurrence of one or more specified violation;

      (iv) forward a copy of the order under clause (ii) or (iii), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and such trust or institution.

      (II) The term “specified violation” is proposed to be defined by inserting an Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 12AB of the Act to mean the following violation :-

      (a) where any income of the trust or institution under the second regime has been applied other than for the objects for which it is established; or

      (b) the trust of institution under the second regime has income from profits and gains of business whichis not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or separate books of account are not maintained by it in respect of the business which is incidental to the attainment of its objectives; or

      (c) the trust or the institution under the second regime has applied any part of its income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not enure for the benefit of the public; or

      (d) the trust or institution under the second regime established for charitable purpose created or established after the commencement of this Act, has applied any part of its income for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste;

      (e) any activity being carried outby the trust or the institution under the second regime,

      (i) is not genuine; or

      (ii) is not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was registered; or

       (f) the trust or the institution under the second regime has not complied with the requirement of any other law, as referred to in item (B) of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AB, and the order, direction or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such non-compliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality.

      III) Sub-section (5) of section 12AB of the Act is proposed to be substituted with a new sub-section (5) to provide that that the order under clause (ii) or (iii) of subsection (4) shall be passed before expiry of the period of six months, calculated from the end of the quarter in which the first notice is issued by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 2022, calling for any document or information, or for making any inquiry, under clause (i) of subsection (4);

      IV) Similarly, the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act is proposed to be substituted to provide that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of the said section 10 is approved under said clause and subsequently-

      (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year;

      (b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 for any previous year; or

      (c) such case has been selected in accordance with the risk management strategy, formulated by the Board from time to time, for any previous year, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall-

      (i) call for such documents or information from the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution or make such inquiry as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the occurrence of any specified violation;

      (ii) pass an order in writing cancelling the approval of such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, on or before the specified date, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years if he is satisfied that one or more specified violation has taken place;

      (iii) pass an order in writing refusing to cancel the approval of such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, on or before the specified date, if he is not satisfied about the occurrence of one or more specified violations;

      (iv) forward a copy of the order under clause (ii) or (iii), as the case may be, to the Assessing Officer and such fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution;

      V) It is also proposed to insert an Explanation 1 to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to provide that for the purposes of this proviso, “specified date” shall mean the day on which the period of six months, calculated from the end of the quarter in which the first notice is issued by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 2022, calling for any document or information, or for making any inquiry, under clause (i) expires.

      VI) The term “specified violation” is also proposed to be defined by inserting an Explanation (Explanation 2) to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act to mean the following: -

      (a) where any income of trust or institution under the first regime has been applied other than for the objects for which it is established; or

      (b) the trust or institution under the first regime has income from profits and gains of business is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or separate books of account are not maintained by it in respect of the business which is incidental to the attainment of its objectives; or

      (c) any activity being carried out by the trust or institution under the first regime-

      (A) is not genuine; or

      (B) is not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which it was notified or approved; or

      (d) the trust or institution under the first regime has not complied with the requirement of any other law for the time being in force, and the order, direction or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such noncompliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality.

      Consequentially sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act is proposed to be amended by deleting the reference to trusts or institution under the first regime in the first proviso and delete the existing third proviso.

      It is also proposed to provide by inserting an Explanation (Explanation 3) to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act that where a reference, under the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before the 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain provisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with in the manner provided under the said Explanation.

      VII) It is proposed to insert another proviso in sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act providing that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any trust or institution under first or second regime has committed any specified violation, as defined in the Explanation 2 to fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, he shall,

      (a) send a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to withdraw the approval or registration, as the case may be; and

      (b) no order making an assessment of the total income or loss of such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution shall be made by him without giving effect to the order passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under clause (ii) or (iii) of the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB

      Consequentially, it is also proposed to amend the provisions of clause (iii) of Explanation to section 153 by deleting the reference to trusts or institution under the first regime and to insert a new clause (xiii) to provide that the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under the second proviso to sub90 section (3) of section 143 or is deemed to have been made under Explanation 3 to the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10, and ending with the date on which the copy of the order under clause (ii) or (iii) of fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, is received by the Assessing Officer shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation.

      These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2022.

      [Clauses 4, 7, 40 and 48]

       

       

       


      Full Text:

      Budget 2022-23 + FINANCE Bill, 2022

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax