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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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