Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.

Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.

Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.

Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.

Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.

Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.

Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.

Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

Cash transaction penalty: acceptance of prohibited loans or deposits triggers penalty equal to amount received under the new clause.
Clause 450 imposes a penalty equal to the amount of any loan, deposit or specified sum taken or accepted in contravention of the substantive prohibition, centralizes authority to impose that penalty with the Assessing Officer, and leaves key interpretive and procedural questions-such as the definition of "specified sum", the availability of a reasonable cause exception, and limitation and hearing procedures-to be clarified elsewhere in the Bill or by administrative guidance.

Penalty for failure to collect tax at source: Assessing Officer may impose penalty equal to uncollected tax, discretion noted.
Clause 449 provides that any person required under Chapter XIX-B who fails to collect the whole or part of tax may be liable to a penalty equal to the amount of tax not collected, with the Assessing Officer empowered to impose that penalty; the clause covers total and partial failures, fixes the penalty quantum as equal to the uncollected tax, and does not expressly provide a reasonable cause exception.

Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source: equal to unpaid tax, imposed at Assessing Officer's discretion.
Clause 448 penalises failure to deduct, pay, or ensure payment of tax at source under Chapter XIX-B and specified notes, imposing a penalty equal to the tax unpaid and vesting discretion to impose that penalty in the Assessing Officer; the clause covers partial failures and obligations to ensure payment but is silent on an explicit reasonable cause defence.

Failure to furnish accountant's report under section 172 may attract fixed statutory penalty; procedural safeguards need clarification.
Clause 447 authorises the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed penalty of one lakh rupees for failure to furnish an accountant's report as required by section 172; the provision mirrors Section 271BA in structure and intent, emphasising a uniform fixed penalty to enforce documentary compliance, while raising issues about the scope of section 172, the absence of an explicit reasonable cause exception, and procedural safeguards such as show cause notice and opportunity to be heard.

Audit compliance penalty: failure to obtain or file mandated audit reports may attract a capped percentage-based sanction.
Clause 446 penalizes failure to obtain a mandatory audit or to furnish the audit report under s.63 by authorizing the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the lesser of a percentage of total sales, turnover or gross receipts for the relevant tax year(s) or a fixed monetary cap, thereby targeting both non-audit and non-filing conduct and centralizing enforcement discretion under a proportional, capped sanction.

Penalty for diversion of charitable funds: escalating sanctions for benefits to related persons under the new income tax framework.
Clause 445 links penalties to the charging of "specified income" under section 337 where a registered non-profit applies income for the benefit of a related person. It covers direct and indirect benefits, vests discretion in the Assessing Officer to impose a monetary penalty during proceedings, prescribes an equal-amount penalty for the first violation and a doubled penalty for subsequent violations, and does not require proof of mens rea.

Penalty for false accounting entries: false or omitted entries made to evade tax attract a penalty equal to the entry amount.
Penalty for false or omitted accounting entries applies where entries are material to computation of total income and made with intent to evade tax; penalty equals the aggregate amount of the false or omitted entry, extends to anyone who causes such entries, and covers use or intention to use forged documents, invoices without actual supply/receipt, and invoices involving non existent persons, with Assessing Officer and specified appellate officers empowered to impose the sanction.

Penalty for undisclosed income: fixed tax-based sanction added to assessed tax for unexplained income, with limited exceptions.
Clause 443 authorises tax officers and appellate commissioners to impose a fixed additional penalty on tax computed in respect of income determined from specified unexplained sources, while exempting amounts voluntarily disclosed and taxed within the relevant year, and barring a duplicate penalty under an alternate penalty provision; procedural safeguards in designated procedural sections apply to the imposition and appeal of the penalty.

Documentation penalties: new clause preserves ad valorem and flat penalties, reinforcing strict transfer pricing compliance for cross border transactions.
Clause 442 establishes penalties for failures to maintain, report, or furnish accurate documentation for international transactions and specified domestic transactions, comprising an ad valorem penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) for non maintenance, non reporting or incorrect information, and a prescribed authority's power to levy a flat monetary penalty for failure to furnish required information; the provision largely mirrors Section 271AA but omits an explicit "without prejudice" clause and does not address reasonable cause or proportionality concerns.

Record keeping obligation triggers fixed penalty for non maintenance or non retention of prescribed tax records, raising proportionality concerns.
Clause 441 imposes a fixed penalty for failure to keep, maintain, or retain prescribed books of account and documents as required by the statutory reference provision, and vests authority to impose the penalty in the Assessing Officer and appellate officers. The clause applies an objective standard of liability, omits an explicit savings clause preserving other penalty provisions, and contains no express exception for reasonable cause, raising issues of cumulative penalties and proportionality.

Immunity from penalty: mechanism to obtain protection from penalty and prosecution when tax is paid and no appeal is filed.
Clause 440 permits an assessee to apply for immunity from penalty and prosecution where tax and interest under the assessment/reassessment order are paid within the notice period and no appeal is filed; the application must be made within one month in prescribed form, the AO must decide within three months after giving opportunity of being heard, immunity is granted only after the appeal period expires and excludes cases of aggravated defaults, and an order on immunity is final and bars appeal or revision if accepted.