Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 223 supplements section 222 with procedural framework for TRO operations. TRO jurisdiction, certificate-issuance, procedural compliance frameworks operationalised via Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962.
Practitioner discipline — TRO procedural defects often basis for stay / quashing. Documentation discipline; Rules-compliance check; CIT-supervision request available.
The 2025 Act preserves the framework.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 ; AIR 1965 SC 325 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee in appeal sought to raise new grounds going to the question whether income was assessable in the hands of the firm or in the hands of its members; the AAC had taken a narrow view of his appellate jurisdiction.
Issue. Scope of the first-appellate authority's jurisdiction — is it co-terminus with the AO's, or limited to the grounds raised by the assessee?
HELD. The first-appellate authority (CIT(A) under the present scheme) has plenary powers co-terminus with the AO; he can confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, and consider any aspect arising out of the assessment record.
“The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do.”
Relevance. Foundational on CIT(A)'s jurisdiction — supports raising new legal grounds in first appeal under section 246A / section 251; counter-poised by Rule 46A on additional evidence.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions application
Facts. Standard scenario invoking Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions.
Computation.
Operative provision applied per bare-Act framework.
STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE — 18-ROW MAP
01. Section & marginal note
Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions — Chapter X-B (Transfer Pricing).
02. Sub-section structure
Per operative text — see Block 1 verbatim.
03. Operative trigger
International transaction (or SDT) between Associated Enterprises.
04. Persons affected
Resident or NR — wherever ALP / AE / international-transaction nexus exists.
05. Time anchor
Per financial year — TP documentation contemporaneous; Form 3CEB due with assessment.
06. Income anchor
Income from international transaction or SDT — to be computed at ALP.
07. Residential-status nexus
AE definition independent of residence; non-resident AE common.
08. Rate / charge mechanism
Recomputed income at ALP taxed at normal rates; primary + secondary adjustments separately.
09. TDS / TCS interaction
TDS u/s 195 on payments to NR-AE; rate consistent with treaty / domestic source rule.
10. Advance-tax obligation
Recomputed income subject to advance tax; interest u/s 234A/B/C.
11. Presumptive provisions
TP framework applies notwithstanding presumptive regime.
12. Exemption / deduction mechanism
Deductions disallowed if not at ALP; secondary adjustment may be repatriation-deemed.
13. Refund / credit
Net effect post-MAP / APA; foreign tax credit interplay.
14. Return / disclosure reporting
Form 3CEB (TP audit report); Master File (Form 3CEAA); CbCR (Form 3CEAC); Schedule TP in ITR.
15. Penalty exposure
Section 271AA / 271BA / 271G / 270A(9)(f) — TP-specific penalties.
16. Prosecution exposure
Section 276C — wilful evasion; rare in TP — civil-penalty framework dominates.
17. Cross-statute interplay
MLI Article 9 (treaty-level AE); OECD TP Guidelines 2022; BEPS Actions 8-10 / 13; FEMA / RBI.
18. Repeal & saving — 1961 → 2025
Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 223 supplements section 222 with procedural framework for TRO operations. TRO jurisdiction, certificate-issuance, procedural compliance frameworks operationalised via Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962.
Practitioner discipline — TRO procedural defects often basis for stay / quashing. Documentation discipline; Rules-compliance check; CIT-supervision request available.
The 2025 Act preserves the framework.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ Income-tax Act 1961 — Chapter XVII-D inserted; comprehensive recovery framework.
■ Finance Act 1965 — Section 220 framework refined.
■ Finance Act 1989 — Sections 234A/B/C interest framework inserted (replacing earlier section 215-217 penal framework).
■ Finance Act 2001 — Section 234D excess-refund-interest inserted.
■ Finance Act 2012 — Section 234E TDS-statement-late-fee inserted.
■ Finance Act 2017 — Section 234F return-late-fee framework.
■ Finance Act 2020 — Section 234G specified-statement-fee inserted.
■ Finance Act 2021 — Section 234H Aadhaar-PAN linkage-fee inserted.
■ Finance Act 2022 — Procedural refinements to recovery framework.
■ Finance Act 2025 — Framework preserved; Income-tax Act 2025 s. 536 saving.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION — VERIFIED LANDMARK AUTHORITIES
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 ; (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court — 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam (1981) 131 ITR 597 ; (1981) 4 SCC 173 (Supreme Court — 3-Judge Bench)
Facts. Section 52(2) (since deleted) deemed sale consideration to be FMV where FMV exceeded the declared consideration by 15%. The Department applied it on a literal reading even when the assessee had not in fact received more than the declared price.
Issue. Whether a deeming provision in a charging schema can be construed literally where its plain reading produces a result manifestly contrary to legislative object.
HELD. The Court read down section 52(2) to apply only where the assessee had actually received consideration in excess of the declared sum. A literal construction yielding absurd or unjust results must yield to an object-based interpretation; the CBDT's contemporaneous Circular No. 96 was held binding on the Revenue.
“It is well settled that a literal construction of a statutory provision ought not to be adopted if it produces a manifestly unjust result… Where a literal construction creates an anomaly, the courts will adopt that construction which avoids the anomaly.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for purposive construction of deeming fictions across the 1961 Act — applies wherever a deeming clause (e.g., s. 50C, s. 56(2)(x), s. 2(22)(e)) yields a result contrary to legislative purpose.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 ; AIR 1965 SC 325 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee in appeal sought to raise new grounds going to the question whether income was assessable in the hands of the firm or in the hands of its members; the AAC had taken a narrow view of his appellate jurisdiction.
Issue. Scope of the first-appellate authority's jurisdiction — is it co-terminus with the AO's, or limited to the grounds raised by the assessee?
HELD. The first-appellate authority (CIT(A) under the present scheme) has plenary powers co-terminus with the AO; he can confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment, and consider any aspect arising out of the assessment record.
“The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has plenary powers in disposing of an appeal. The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of the Income-tax Officer. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do.”
Relevance. Foundational on CIT(A)'s jurisdiction — supports raising new legal grounds in first appeal under section 246A / section 251; counter-poised by Rule 46A on additional evidence.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989
Subject. Explanatory notes — Finance Act 1989 amendments (incl. PY unification)
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024
Subject. Procedure for transitional reassessment notices post-Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Standard Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions application
Facts. Standard scenario invoking Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions.
Computation.
Operative provision applied per bare-Act framework.
Section invocation and consequences analysed; companion sections (220 demand, 222 TRO, 234A/B/C interest framework) cross-referenced.
Result. Standard framework operative.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Bona-fide-difficulty defence
Facts. Assessee establishes bona-fide difficulty in Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions.
Computation.
Document supporting circumstances; section 119(2)(a) CBDT discretion + section 220(2A) interest-reduction framework; bona-fide-difficulty mitigation.
Result. Mitigation framework available.
Illustration — Illustration 3 — Stay + appeal pathway
Facts. Disputed demand under Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions.
Computation.
Section 220(6) stay application; 20% pre-deposit benchmark; section 246A appeal to CIT(A); section 253 ITAT; section 260A HC.
Result. Stay + full appellate route available.
Illustration — Illustration 4 — TRO + Schedule II recovery cascade
Facts. Unpaid demand triggering recovery framework.
Computation.
Section 222 TRO certificate; Schedule II attachment + sale; section 226 alternative modes (bank / employer / debtor).
Comprehensive recovery framework.
Result. Recovery framework operative + section 281 void-transfer awareness.
Illustration — Illustration 5 — Documentation discipline
Facts. Practitioner discipline for Section 223 — TRO Procedural Provisions.
Computation.
Comprehensive documentation: demand notices, payment challans, stay applications, CIT(A) / ITAT orders, computational working papers.
8-year preservation.
Result. Documentation = defence strength.
PRACTITIONER PLANNING NOTES
■ Section 156 demand — respond within 30 days (pay / appeal / stay).
■ Section 220(6) stay — 20% pre-deposit benchmark; comprehensive grounds.
■ Section 220(2A) — CBDT discretionary relief for genuine hardship.
■ Section 222 TRO — once certificate issued, recovery aggressive; cure path narrows.
■ Section 226 alternative modes — banks / employers / debtors notified; attachment immediate.
■ Section 230 NR departure — tax-clearance applied in advance; Form 30C.
■ Section 234A interest — 1% per month from due date of return till filing.
■ Section 234B interest — 1% per month from 1-April of AY till tax-payment (advance-tax shortfall).
■ Section 234C interest — 1% per month per instalment shortfall.
■ Section 234D interest — 0.5% per month on excess refund retained.
■ Section 234F fee — Rs 5,000 (Rs 1,000 if income <= Rs 5 lakh) for late return.
■ Section 234H Aadhaar-PAN — Rs 1,000 fee post-deadline.
■ Section 244A interest on refund — companion claim.
■ Section 281 void-transfer awareness — pending-demand assessees.
■ Documentation 8 years — recovery, payment, stay records preserved.
LITIGATION DEFENCE
■ Mathuram Agrawal — strict construction of recovery / interest provisions.
■ Vatika Township — prospective amendment; retrospective interest barred.
■ KP Varghese — purposive construction of recovery framework.
■ Section 220(2A) — CBDT discretionary relief.
■ Section 220(6) — stay framework defence.
■ Section 119(2)(a) — CBDT relief in genuine hardship.
■ Section 234A/B/C interest — compensatory not penal; computational defences.
■ Section 234E/F fee — challenges to constitutionality / proportionality.
■ Section 222 TRO defects — sanction / authority / procedural challenges.
■ Section 226 alternative-mode procedural defences.
■ Section 230 tax-clearance certificate procedural defences.
■ Section 246A appeal — quantum-defences relevant to demand.
■ Section 264 revision — alternative pathway.
■ Section 281 bona-fide-commercial-transaction defence.
■ Article 226 writ for jurisdictional defects.
■ Documentation 8 years — comprehensive recovery file.
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE — 15 STEPS
Step 1. Section 156 demand-notice
30-day payment window from service of demand.
Step 2. Section 220(6) stay application
Within 30 days; 20% pre-deposit benchmark.
Step 3. Section 246A appeal
Quantum dispute → appeal.
Step 4. Stay-pending-appeal
Section 220(6) interim relief framework.
Step 5. Section 220(2A) CBDT relief
If genuine hardship + bona-fide-difficulty.
Step 6. Section 222 TRO certificate
If unpaid after demand-window.
Step 7. Schedule II recovery procedure
Attachment + sale framework.
Step 8. Section 226 alternative modes
Bank / employer / debtor notification.
Step 9. Section 234A interest computation
Return-default interest.
Step 10. Section 234B/C interest computation
Advance-tax shortfall / deferment.
Step 11. Section 234D interest
Excess-refund recovery.
Step 12. Section 234E/F/G/H fee
Compliance-default fees.
Step 13. Section 244A interest claim
Refund-side framework.
Step 14. Section 281 void-transfer awareness
Pending-demand transactions.
Step 15. Documentation 8 years
Comprehensive recovery-file preservation.
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST — 19 ITEMS
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST
☐ Section 156 demand-notice received + analysed.
☐ 30-day payment window calendar.
☐ Section 220(6) stay application (if appeal pending).
☐ 20% pre-deposit benchmark consideration.
☐ Section 246A appeal filing.
☐ Stay-pending-appeal application.
☐ Section 220(2A) CBDT hardship relief (if applicable).
☐ Section 222 TRO certificate compliance.
☐ Schedule II procedure compliance.
☐ Section 226 alternative-mode response.
☐ Section 230 tax-clearance (NR).
☐ Section 234A interest computation.
☐ Section 234B/C interest computation.
☐ Section 234D excess-refund interest (if applicable).
☐ Section 234E/F/G/H fee computation.
☐ Section 244A refund interest (if applicable).
☐ Section 281 void-transfer awareness.
☐ Documentation 8 years preserved.
☐ Section 264 revision (alternative pathway).
CROSS-REFERENCES (28+)
CROSS-REFERENCES
▸ Section 220 — When tax payable / default.
▸ Section 221 — Penalty for tax-payment default.
▸ Section 222 — TRO certificate framework.
▸ Section 226 — Other modes of recovery.
▸ Section 230 — Tax-clearance certificate (NR).
▸ Section 234A — Interest on return-default.
▸ Section 234B — Interest on advance-tax default.
▸ Section 234C — Interest on advance-tax deferment.
▸ Section 234D — Interest on excess refund.
▸ Section 234E — Late TDS-statement fee.
▸ Section 234F — Late return-filing fee.
▸ Section 234G — Specified-statement fee.
▸ Section 234H — Aadhaar-PAN linkage fee.
▸ Section 244A — Interest on refund.
▸ Section 281 — Void transfers.
▸ Section 281B — Provisional attachment.
▸ Section 156 — Demand notice.
▸ Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules 1962.
▸ Schedule II — TRO procedure rules.
▸ CrPC 1973 — Procedural framework.
▸ PMLA 2002 — Predicate-offence framework.
▸ FEMA 1999 — Cross-border framework.
▸ Income-tax Act 2025 — s. 536 saving.
▸ Section 246A — Appeal pathway.
▸ Section 220(6) — Stay framework.
▸ Section 119(2)(a) — CBDT hardship relief.
▸ Section 220(2A) — Reduction / waiver of interest.
▸ Section 222 + Schedule II — Comprehensive recovery framework.