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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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

      The Jurisprudence of Repeal and Savings in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      19 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 536 Repeal and savings.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a watershed moment in Indian tax jurisprudence, effecting the formal repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the 1961 Act") and introducing a comprehensive set of savings and transitional provisions. This clause is pivotal in ensuring legal continuity, protecting accrued rights, and providing mechanisms for the seamless migration from the old regime to the new. Its significance is best appreciated when analyzed in the context of Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which itself served as the transitional provision upon the repeal of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ("the 1922 Act"). The process of statutory repeal and savings is a critical legislative function, designed to prevent legal vacuums and protect vested rights and ongoing proceedings. Clause 536, much like Section 297 before it, is not merely a formal declaration of repeal but a detailed framework safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, the revenue, and the broader legal system. The clause also incorporates by reference the general principles of statutory interpretation as contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, thereby reinforcing the doctrine of legal continuity.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 536 is twofold: to formally repeal the 1961 Act and to provide for the continuity of legal actions, rights, obligations, and proceedings arising under the repealed law. The legislative intent is clear-to avoid disruption, prevent the abrogation of accrued rights or liabilities, and ensure that the transition to the new Income Tax Bill, 2025 ("the 2025 Bill") is orderly and just. Historically, such provisions are informed by the principle that the repeal of a statute should not, unless expressly provided, affect previous operations, rights, or liabilities. Section 297 of the 1961 Act was crafted with a similar intent, drawing upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Clause 536, however, is more detailed and nuanced, reflecting the complexities of modern taxation and the experience gained over six decades of the 1961 Act's operation.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 536 is divided into three main parts: (1) the formal repeal, (2) detailed savings and transitional provisions, and (3) the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

      3.1 Sub-clause (1): Formal Repeal

      This sub-clause declares that the Income-tax Act, 1961 is repealed. This is a formal, declaratory provision and is the legislative act that ends the operation of the 1961 Act, subject to the savings and transitional provisions that follow.

      3.2 Sub-clause (2): Savings and Transitional Provisions

      This sub-clause, running from (a) to (v), is the heart of Clause 536. Each item addresses a specific aspect of the transition:

      • (a) Previous Operation and Acts Done: Ensures that the repeal does not affect anything already done or suffered under the 1961 Act. This is fundamental to legal certainty, protecting actions and events that occurred under the old law.
      • (b) Rights, Privileges, Obligations, Liabilities: Protects all rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities accrued or incurred under the repealed Act. This provision is vital for upholding the doctrine of vested rights.
      • (c) Continuation of Proceedings: Proceedings (including notices, assessments, reassessments, rectifications, penalties, references, revisions, and appeals) relating to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026 will continue under the 1961 Act. This ensures that assessments for past years are not disrupted by the change in law.
      • (d) Penalty Proceedings: Proceedings for penalties relating to tax years before 1 April 2026 may be initiated and imposed as if the 2025 Bill had not been enacted. This provision prevents taxpayers from escaping penalties due to the repeal.
      • (e) Pending Proceedings: Any proceeding pending before any authority, tribunal, or court at the commencement of the 2025 Bill will continue as if the new Act had not been enacted. This is crucial for judicial and administrative continuity.
      • (f) Elections/Declarations/Options: Any election, declaration, or option exercised under the 1961 Act, and in force immediately before the commencement of the new Act, is deemed to be under the corresponding provision of the 2025 Bill. This prevents the need for taxpayers to re-exercise options or declarations.
      • (g) Refunds and Defaults: For proceedings relating to tax years before 1 April 2026, if a refund becomes due or a default occurs after commencement of the new Act, the provisions of the new Act regarding interest will apply prospectively. This harmonizes the interest regime and ensures fairness.
      • (h) Conditional Deductions/Exclusions: If deductions or exclusions were allowed under the 1961 Act subject to conditions, and those conditions are violated after 1 April 2026, the sums are deemed to be income in the year of violation, taxable under the new Act. This preserves the integrity of conditional tax benefits.
      • (i) Recovery of Sums: Any sum payable under the 1961 Act may be recovered under the new Act, without prejudice to actions already taken under the old law. This ensures enforceability of outstanding tax liabilities.
      • (j) Continuation of Agreements, Approvals, etc.: Agreements, appointments, approvals, recognitions, directions, instructions, notifications, orders, or rules under the 1961 Act, not inconsistent with the new Act, are deemed to continue under the new Act. This fosters continuity in tax administration.
      • (k) Expiry of Limitation Periods: Where the period for making applications, appeals, references, or revisions under the 1961 Act had expired before the new Act commenced, the new Act does not revive those rights merely by providing a longer or extendable period.
      • (l) Tax Credit Carry Forwards (MAT/AMT): Tax credits u/ss 115JAA and 115JD of the 1961 Act for years before 1 April 2026 are carried forward to the new Act, subject to continued eligibility.
      • (m) Loss Carry Forwards: Losses under specified heads (house property, business, speculation, specified business, race horses) brought forward from years before 1 April 2026 are to be set off and carried forward under the new Act as per the old Act's provisions.
      • (n) Capital Loss Carry Forwards: Capital losses u/s 74 of the 1961 Act, brought forward from pre-2026 years, are to be set off against capital gains under the new Act for up to eight years.
      • (o) Set-off of Loss/Depreciation on Amalgamation: Set-offs allowed u/s 72A (amalgamations) in pre-2026 years are deemed income if conditions are breached after 2026.
      • (p) Set-off for Co-operative Banks: Similar provision for co-operative banks u/s 72AB.
      • (q) Deemed Capital Gains on Breach of Exemptions: Gains exempted u/s 47 (various reorganizations) are taxed under the new Act if post-2026 conditions are violated.
      • (r) Unabsorbed Depreciation/Allowances: Unabsorbed depreciation or allowances u/ss 32(2), 35(4) are carried forward and deemed part of the corresponding allowance under the new Act.
      • (s) Deferred Revenue Expenditure: Deductions under specified sections (35ABB, 35D, 35DD, 35DDA, 35E, and first proviso to 36(1)(ix)) are continued under the new Act if conditions are met.
      • (t) Bad Debt Provisions: Credit balances in bad debt provisions u/s 36(1)(viia) as of 31 March 2026 are carried forward to the new Act.
      • (u) E-schemes: Schemes for faceless assessments or other digital processes notified under the 1961 Act are deemed to continue under the new Act or u/s 294B if there is no corresponding provision.
      • (v) Search and Seizure Proceedings: Searches or requisitions initiated before 1 April 2026 continue to be governed by the 1961 Act.

      3.3 Sub-clause (3): General Clauses Act Application

      This sub-clause clarifies that, in addition to the above, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which lays down general principles on the effect of repeal, will apply. This is a standard savings provision, reinforcing the statutory framework for legal continuity.

      4. Practical Implications

      The practical implications of Clause 536 are profound and multifaceted:

      • Taxpayers: Individuals and businesses are protected from retrospective changes that could unsettle settled assessments, rights, or liabilities. Losses, credits, and deductions are preserved, and ongoing proceedings are not prejudiced by the change in law.
      • Revenue Authorities: The authorities retain the power to assess, collect, and enforce tax liabilities arising under the old law for prior years, ensuring no revenue loss due to the repeal.
      • Legal System: Courts and tribunals can continue to adjudicate pending matters under the old law, avoiding confusion or jurisdictional disputes.
      • Compliance: Taxpayers must be vigilant in understanding which law applies to which year, especially for transitional years. The carry-forward and set-off provisions require careful tracking of eligibility and compliance with conditions under both regimes.
      • Digital Administration: The explicit savings of schemes for faceless or electronic processes ensure that technological advancements in tax administration are not disrupted.

      5. Comparative Analysis with Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      A detailed comparison reveals both continuity and significant evolution in approach:

      5.1 Structural Similarities

      Both provisions serve the same core function: to repeal the old law and provide for the savings of rights, liabilities, and proceedings. Both incorporate the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and both contain specific sub-clauses dealing with pending proceedings, rights, approvals, and recovery of sums.

      5.2 Key Differences and Advancements

      • Scope and Detail: Clause 536 is far more detailed and granular than Section 297. While Section 297 provided a broad framework, Clause 536 anticipates a wider range of scenarios, reflecting the increased complexity of the tax system since 1961.
      • Temporal Application: Section 297 primarily dealt with the transition from the 1922 Act to the 1961 Act, focusing on assessment years up to 31 March 1962. Clause 536 applies to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, with explicit references to the treatment of losses, credits, and deductions over multiple years.
      • Carry Forward of Losses and Credits: Section 297 had limited provisions regarding carry forward of losses and credits. Clause 536, by contrast, contains detailed provisions on the carry forward and set-off of various types of losses (business, speculation, capital gains, etc.), MAT/AMT credits, and unabsorbed depreciation, reflecting the evolution of tax incentives and computations over the decades.
      • Conditional Deductions and Violations: Clause 536 introduces specific provisions (e.g., sub-clause (h), (o), (p), (q)) for the treatment of deductions or exemptions allowed under the old law, but subject to conditions that may be breached after the transition. This ensures that the tax base is protected against post-repeal violations of conditions attached to pre-repeal benefits.
      • Digital and Faceless Schemes: Clause 536 uniquely addresses the continuity of digital and faceless assessment schemes, which did not exist in 1961. This is a forward-looking provision, ensuring administrative continuity in a digital era.
      • Interest on Refunds and Defaults: Both provisions provide for the application of the new law's interest provisions to refunds and defaults arising after the commencement of the new Act, but relating to earlier years. However, Clause 536 is more explicit in its application and scope.
      • Pending Proceedings: Both provisions allow for the continuation of pending proceedings under the old law. However, Clause 536 is more comprehensive, covering a wider range of proceedings (including notices, assessments, re-assessments, rectifications, penalties, references, revisions, and appeals).
      • Agreements and Notifications: Both provisions save agreements, appointments, approvals, recognitions, directions, instructions, notifications, orders, and rules under the old law, provided they are not inconsistent with the new law. Clause 536, however, omits the specific reference to notifications u/s 60/60A, which was relevant to the 1922 Act transition.
      • Limitation Periods: Both provisions prevent the revival of applications, appeals, or revisions where the limitation period had expired under the old law, merely because the new law provides a longer or extendable period.
      • Search and Seizure: Clause 536 specifically provides for the continuation of search and seizure proceedings initiated before 1 April 2026 under the old Act, a reflection of the increased importance and frequency of such actions in modern tax administration.

      5.3 Policy and Legal Evolution

      The differences between the two provisions reflect broader changes in tax policy, administration, and the legal landscape. The increased detail and specificity in Clause 536 indicate a legislative intent to minimize ambiguity, preempt disputes, and provide certainty to taxpayers and the administration alike. The explicit provisions for digital schemes and the more nuanced treatment of conditional benefits reflect the lessons learned from decades of tax litigation and the need for clarity in transitional situations.

      5.4 Potential Issues and Ambiguities

      Despite its detail, Clause 536 may give rise to interpretive issues, particularly in areas such as:

      • Identifying the "corresponding provisions" under the new Act for the purposes of elections, options, or deductions.
      • Determining the treatment of benefits or liabilities where the new Act materially alters the conditions or definitions applicable under the old law.
      • Ensuring that the carry forward of losses, credits, and deductions is seamless, particularly in complex group structures or reorganizations.
      • Transitional issues for digital schemes where the new Act's provisions differ from the old law or where no direct correspondence exists.

      These are, however, inherent in any major legislative transition and are typically resolved through subordinate legislation, administrative guidance, or judicial interpretation.

      6. Conclusion

      Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a sophisticated and comprehensive approach to statutory repeal and savings in the context of Indian income tax law. Building on the foundation laid by Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it provides a detailed and nuanced framework for the protection of rights, continuation of proceedings, and preservation of legal and administrative continuity. The clause reflects both the increased complexity of the tax regime and the evolution of legal and administrative practice over the past six decades. The comparative analysis demonstrates both continuity in legal principles and significant advancement in legislative technique. Clause 536 is more detailed, forward-looking, and responsive to the realities of modern tax administration than its predecessor, Section 297. It is likely to serve as a model for future legislative transitions in India and elsewhere.


      Full Text:

      Clause 536 Repeal and savings.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax