Loading...

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 characters 0/2000
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.
Relevance Default Date
    Act Rules Bills
    Voidable Transfers in Tax Law : Clause 499 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 281 of the Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Changing Face of Criminal Procedure in Income Tax Offence Prosecution : Clause 498 of Income Tax Bil...
    Act Rules Bills
    Procedural Reform in Tax Offence Trials : Clause 497 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 280C o...
    Act Rules Bills
    Jurisdictional Framework for Tax Prosecutions : Clause 496 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Designation and functioning of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the proposed legislati...
    Act Rules Bills
    Legal Protections against Unauthorized Disclosure in Indian Tax Law : Clause 494 of Income Tax Bill,...
    Act Rules Bills
    Proof of Official Entries in Tax Prosecutions : Clause 493 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Comparative Review of Non-Cognizable Offences in Indian Income Tax Legislation : Clause 492 of the I...
    Act Rules Bills
    Safeguards and Procedures in Income Tax Prosecution : Clause 491 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Voidable asset transfers: transfers during tax proceedings can be voided against tax claims, with exceptions for bona fide transferees.
Clause 499 renders charges or transfers of assets void against tax claims when effected during proceedings or after completion but before service of recovery notice, covering transfers by sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode and an expansive list of assets including virtual digital assets. Exceptions protect transfers made for adequate consideration without notice and those with prior permission of the Assessing Officer, while stock in trade is excluded; the clause updates procedural references and preserves core safeguards from the predecessor provision.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Application of new criminal procedure code aligns tax prosecutions under updated procedures, altering prosecutor status and qualification requirements.
Clause 498 applies the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to Special Court proceedings under the Income Tax Bill, deeming the person conducting the prosecution to be a Public Prosecutor and enabling the Central Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors. Appointments require an experienced advocate with "special knowledge of law", and appointees are treated as Public Prosecutors within the BNSS definition, thereby importing BNSS powers, duties and procedural rules to tax prosecutions.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Summons case classification: minor tax offences must be tried by Special Courts under the new criminal procedure framework.
Clause 497 requires that offences under the Income Tax Bill punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years, or with fine, or with both, be tried as summons cases by a Special Court, overriding contrary BNSS provisions and applying the BNSS summons-case procedure accordingly.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts centralises tax prosecutions, with cognizance only on authorised complaints.
Clause 496 mandates exclusive trial of income tax offences by designated Special Courts, subject to actual designation for relevant areas or classes of cases, and contains a non obstante provision giving it overriding effect over the general criminal procedure code. Cognizance by a Special Court is restricted to complaints filed by authorities authorised under the Act. Transitional rules preserve continuity by allowing designated courts to continue existing and future trials and permitting non designated courts to finish pending matters; the clause cross references the Bill's procedural provision to align competence within the reorganised statute.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Special Courts designation enables focused, consolidated trials for tax offences and aligns procedure with the new criminal code.
Clause 495 empowers the Central Government, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to notify one or more courts of Judicial Magistrate of the first class as Special Courts for specified areas, cases or classes of cases to try offences under the Income Tax Bill, 2025; it permits these Special Courts to try related offences joined at the same trial under the applicable criminal procedure and updates procedural references to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while preserving the core scheme of Section 280A.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Unauthorized disclosure by public servants criminalised; prosecution requires Central Government sanction and carries imprisonment and fine.
Clause 494 criminalises unauthorized furnishing of taxpayer information or production of documents by a public servant in contravention of the Bill's secrecy provision, prescribes imprisonment and fine, and requires prior sanction of the Central Government before prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of official tax records: certified copies allowed as evidence, easing prosecution while preserving challenge rights.
Clause 493 mandates that entries in records or documents in the custody of an income-tax authority "shall be admitted in evidence" in prosecution proceedings under the chapter and permits proof either by production of the original records or by production of a certified copy signed by the custodian stating it is a true copy and that the originals are in its custody. The clause covers varied formats of records, limits application to criminal proceedings under the chapter, and preserves courts' power to test genuineness and require originals where fairness demands.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Non-cognizable classification of specified tax offences requires magistrate sanction before arrest or investigation, limiting summary enforcement.
Clause 492 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 designates specified income tax offences as non-cognizable for purposes of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by means of a non-obstante provision. As a result, arrest cannot be effected without a magistrate-issued warrant and investigations into those offences require prior magistrate authorization, imposing judicial gatekeeping at the threshold of criminal proceedings and constraining unilateral police action in tax enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Prior sanction for tax prosecution centralises oversight, enables compounding, and restricts arbitrary criminal initiation against taxpayers.
Clause 491 makes prior sanction by designated senior officers a precondition to prosecution for specified tax offences, authorises senior regional heads and the Board to issue directions, permits compounding of offences at any stage by senior officials, bars prosecution where specified penalties have been reduced or waived, and affirms that statements or documents given to tax authorities remain admissible notwithstanding an expectation of penalty reduction or compounding.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Powers to Call for Information under the Income Tax Law : Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

30 May, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Clause 252 Power to call for information.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ("Clause 252") and Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Section 133") are pivotal statutory provisions that empower income tax authorities to call for information from various persons, entities, and intermediaries for the effective administration and enforcement of income tax law in India. These provisions play a crucial role in the investigation, assessment, and verification processes, underpinning the ability of tax authorities to ensure compliance, detect evasion, and protect the integrity of the tax system. The significance of such powers has grown in the context of increasing complexity in financial transactions, the proliferation of financial intermediaries, and the need for timely access to information in a globalized economy. Both Clause 252 and Section 133 reflect legislative intent to strike a balance between the investigatory needs of the tax administration and the rights of taxpayers and third parties. This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 252, explores its objectives and practical implications, and undertakes a comparative examination with Section 133, highlighting similarities, differences, and the evolution of statutory powers in this domain.

Objective and Purpose

The primary objective of Clause 252 is to confer broad and flexible powers upon specified income tax authorities to require information from a wide range of persons and entities. The legislative intent is to facilitate the collection of information necessary for the proper conduct of enquiries or proceedings under the Income Tax Act, including assessment, reassessment, and investigation into possible tax evasion or avoidance. Historically, the power to call for information has been a cornerstone of tax administration, enabling authorities to trace the flow of funds, verify the accuracy of returns, and uncover concealed income. The policy considerations underlying these powers include:

  • Ensuring effective tax compliance and enforcement.
  • Deterring tax evasion and avoidance by enhancing transparency.
  • Enabling cross-verification of information provided by taxpayers.
  • Facilitating international cooperation under tax treaties.

Clause 252, like its predecessor, is designed to be comprehensive in scope, covering not only taxpayers but also intermediaries such as banks, brokers, and agents who may possess relevant information.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Clause 252 is structured into three sub-sections, each delineating the scope, manner, and conditions for exercising the power to call for information.

Sub-section (1): Persons from Whom Information Can Be Called and Nature of Information

Sub-section (1) enumerates six categories of persons or entities from whom information may be required:

  1. General Power to Call for Information (Clause 252(1)(a)):
    The Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), or Commissioner (Appeals) may require any person, including a banking company or its officer, to furnish requisite information or statements of account and affairs, verified in a specified manner, relating to matters deemed useful or relevant to any enquiry or proceedings.
    Interpretation: This provision is drafted in broad terms, allowing authorities to seek information from any person, not limited to the taxpayer, if such information is considered relevant. The inclusion of banking companies is significant, as banks are often custodians of vital financial data.
  2. Firms (Clause 252(1)(b)):
    Firms may be required to provide returns containing names and addresses of partners and their respective shares.
    Interpretation: This facilitates the identification of persons with a beneficial interest in the firm's income and aids in the allocation of income for tax purposes.
  3. Hindu Undivided Families (Clause 252(1)(c)):
    HUFs may be required to furnish returns of the names and addresses of the manager and members.
    Interpretation: This provision recognizes the unique status of HUFs in Indian law and enables authorities to trace income to individual members.
  4. Trustees, Guardians, or Agents (Clause 252(1)(d)):
    Persons believed to be trustees, guardians, or agents may be required to provide returns of names and addresses of beneficiaries or principals.
    Interpretation: This is critical for uncovering income held on behalf of others and preventing the use of trusts or agency arrangements for tax avoidance.
  5. Assessees Regarding Specified Payments (Clause 252(1)(e)):
    Assessees may be required to furnish statements of names and addresses of persons to whom they have paid, in any tax year, rent, interest, commission, royalty, brokerage, or any annuity (other than those taxable under "Salaries") exceeding Rs. 10,000 or such higher amount as prescribed, with particulars of all such payments.
    Interpretation: This enables authorities to cross-check the claims of recipients and ensure proper reporting of income. The threshold of Rs. 10,000 (or higher if prescribed) reflects an intent to focus on significant transactions.
  6. Dealers, Brokers, Agents, and Stock/Commodity Exchanges (Clause 252(1)(f)):
    Such persons may be required to provide statements of names and addresses of all persons to whom or on whose behalf payments have been made or received in connection with the transfer of assets, along with particulars of all such payments and receipts.
    Interpretation: This provision is vital for tracing transactions in financial markets and preventing the use of exchanges for unreported or illicit transfers.

Sub-section (2): Extension of Power to Other Authorities

Clause 252(2) extends the power under sub-section (1)(a) to the "competent authority" or the "Assistant Director." This ensures that investigatory powers are not unduly concentrated and can be exercised at appropriate levels within the tax administration.

Sub-section (3): Procedural Safeguards and Special Situations

Sub-section (3) introduces important procedural safeguards and special conditions:

  • Approval Requirement (Clause 252(3)(a)):
    Where no proceedings are pending, authorities below the rank of Principal Director/Director or Principal Commissioner/Commissioner (excluding the Joint Director or Assistant Director) must obtain prior approval from the higher authority before exercising the power.
    Interpretation: This is a significant procedural check aimed at preventing misuse or overreach of the power in situations where there is no ongoing proceeding, thereby protecting the interests of persons from whom information is sought.
  • Exercise of Power for International Agreements (Clause 252(3)(b)):
    Income-tax authorities notified u/s 246(2)(a) may exercise these powers for the purposes of an agreement referred to in section 159, even if no proceedings are pending.
    Interpretation: This facilitates India's obligations under tax information exchange agreements and double taxation avoidance agreements, ensuring that information can be obtained even in the absence of a domestic proceeding.

Ambiguities and Potential Issues

While Clause 252 is comprehensive, certain ambiguities and interpretational challenges may arise:

  • The phrase "in the opinion of such authority, will be useful for, or relevant to, any enquiry or proceedings" is subjective and may be prone to challenge on grounds of arbitrariness or lack of specificity.
  • The scope of "any person" is extremely broad and could potentially include entities not directly related to the taxpayer, raising concerns about proportionality and privacy.
  • The threshold for reporting payments (Rs. 10,000 or higher as prescribed) may need periodic revision to reflect inflation and changes in economic conditions.
  • The mechanism for verification and the manner in which statements are to be furnished may require further elaboration in subordinate legislation or rules.

Practical Implications

For Taxpayers and Third Parties

Clause 252 imposes compliance obligations on a broad spectrum of persons, including taxpayers, financial institutions, intermediaries, and fiduciaries. The key implications are:

  • Requirement to maintain detailed records and be prepared to furnish information at short notice.
  • Potential exposure to scrutiny not only for one's own affairs but also for transactions involving others (e.g., payments to third parties, fiduciary relationships).
  • Increased compliance costs, especially for small businesses and intermediaries.
  • Obligation to ensure accuracy and completeness of information provided, as furnishing false or incomplete information may attract penalties or prosecution.

For Tax Authorities

For tax authorities, Clause 252 is a powerful investigatory tool that:

  • Enables effective detection of unreported or concealed income.
  • Facilitates cross-verification of information from multiple sources.
  • Supports international cooperation in tax matters, including exchange of information.
  • Requires careful exercise of discretion and adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of power and protect the rights of persons from whom information is sought.

Procedural and Compliance Aspects

  • Authorities must specify the manner and form in which information is to be furnished, and may require verification.
  • Where approval is required (in cases where no proceeding is pending), authorities must document the reasons and obtain prior sanction.
  • Persons receiving notices under Clause 252 must comply within the stipulated time and may seek extensions or clarifications if necessary.

Comparative Analysis: Clause 252 vs. Section 133

A close examination reveals both continuity and evolution in the statutory framework.

Structural Comparison

Both Clause 252 and Section 133 are structured to enumerate the categories of persons from whom information can be called and the nature of such information. However, there are notable differences in drafting, sequencing, and the breadth of powers.

Provisions-wise Comparison

Provision Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Key Differences/Observations
General Power to Call for Information Clause (6): Any person, including banking company, to furnish information/statements as specified by AO, DC(A), JC, JC(A), or C(A). Clause (1)(a): Any person, including banking company/officer, to furnish requisite information/statements as specified by authority. Clause 252 brings the general power to the forefront (first clause), signaling its primacy. The wording is more expansive ("requisite information") and explicitly includes verification "in such manner specified."
Firms Clause (1): Return of names/addresses of partners and respective shares. Clause (1)(b): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Hindu Undivided Families Clause (2): Names/addresses of manager and members. Clause (1)(c): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Trustees, Guardians, Agents Clause (3): Names of persons for/of whom acting, and addresses. Clause (1)(d): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Assessees: Payments Above Threshold Clause (4): Statement of names/addresses of payees of rent, interest, commission, royalty, brokerage, or annuity (excluding "Salaries") above Rs. 1,000 or prescribed higher amount. Clause (1)(e): Statement for payments above Rs. 10,000 or prescribed higher amount. Threshold increased from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000, reflecting inflation and administrative efficiency by focusing on substantial transactions.
Dealers, Brokers, Exchanges Clause (5): Names/addresses of persons to whom/for whom payments made/received in connection with transfer of assets, with particulars. Clause (1)(f): Same. No substantive change; language modernized.
Authority to Exercise Power AO, DC(A), JC, JC(A), C(A); also, higher authorities (Principal DG, DG, Principal CC, CC, Principal D, D, Principal C, C, Joint D, Deputy D, Assistant D). AO, JC, JC(A), C(A); also, competent authority or Assistant Director (for 1(a)). List of authorities slightly restructured; "competent authority" and "Assistant Director" added for certain powers.
Approval Requirement (No Proceedings Pending) Below Principal D or D or Principal C or C (other than Joint D, Deputy D, Assistant D) must obtain prior approval in cases where no proceedings are pending. Similar; below Principal D or D or Principal C or C (other than Joint D or Assistant D) must obtain prior approval. Deputy Director is omitted in Clause 252, possibly reflecting administrative restructuring.
International Agreements Income-tax authority notified u/s 131(2) can exercise these powers for agreements u/s 90/90A, even if no proceedings pending. Income-tax authority notified u/s 246(2)(a) can exercise these powers for agreements u/s 159, even if no proceedings pending. References updated to correspond to the new Bill's section numbering and international cooperation framework.

Other Observations

  • Modernization and Reorganization: Clause 252 modernizes language, reorganizes the sequence, and updates cross-references to conform with the new Bill's structure.
  • Threshold for Reporting: The increase in the monetary threshold for reporting payments (from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10,000) is a significant change, reducing compliance burden for small transactions and focusing administrative resources on larger, potentially riskier payments.
  • Verification Requirements: Clause 252 expressly mentions that statements may be required to be "verified in such manner specified," providing explicit authority for the form and manner of verification.
  • Procedural Safeguards: Both provisions retain the requirement for prior approval in cases where no proceedings are pending, but Clause 252 omits reference to Deputy Director, possibly reflecting a rationalization of authority levels.
  • Alignment with International Standards: The express provision for use of these powers in connection with international agreements reflects India's increasing commitment to tax transparency and cooperation.

Conclusion

Clause 252 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 continues the tradition of robust investigatory powers for income-tax authorities, updating and refining the framework established by Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision maintains the breadth of powers while introducing modernization in language, increasing reporting thresholds, and streamlining the list of authorized officers. The core objectives-ensuring effective tax compliance, facilitating investigation, and supporting international cooperation-remain intact. The procedural safeguards embedded in both provisions reflect a conscious effort to balance investigative needs with the rights and interests of taxpayers and third parties. Looking forward, further clarity may be required through rules or subordinate legislation regarding the manner of furnishing information, verification processes, and the scope of "requisite information." Periodic review of monetary thresholds and the list of authorities empowered to exercise these powers would help ensure continued relevance and proportionality.


Full Text:

Clause 252 Power to call for information.

Topics

Acts Income Tax