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

      Comparison of Section 2(22) "Capital Assets" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      The materials are two versions of the preliminary definitions provision: (i) Clause 2 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and (ii) Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]. The focal point for comparison is clause/sub-clause (22) (definition of "capital asset") and other textual variations within Clause/Section 2. These definitions determine the scope of capital gains and other chargeability concepts and therefore affect taxpayers, tax administrators and intermediaries such as FIIs, insurers and funds. Effective dates or commencement dates are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: definitions provision contained in Clause/Section 2 of the respective instrument. Coverage: comprehensive list of defined terms used throughout the income-tax statute, including "capital asset" at clause/section (22). The texts include sub-definitions, cross-references to other scheduled items and to provisions of other statutes (Companies Act, SEBI Act, FEMA, etc.). The texts supply detailed inclusions and exclusions relevant for chargeability and computation of capital gains. Any legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both texts define "capital asset" broadly as "property of any kind held by an assessee" and provide specified inclusions and exclusions. Key elements in both versions: (a) generic property; (b) securities held by foreign institutional investors or specified investment funds; (c) unit-linked insurance policies (subject to an exemption table); and exclusions for stock-in-trade, personal effects and certain agricultural land. The remainder of Clause/Section 2 supplies numerous other definitions that interact with capital gains provisions (e.g., "short-term capital asset", "transfer", "fair market value").

      Interpretation

      The text frames "capital asset" inclusively but carves out routine business inventory and certain types of agricultural land and personal effects. Cross-references to SEBI regulations, other sections (e.g., section 224(10)(a)), and schedules show legislative intent to align certain capital asset categories with sectoral regulation (FIIs, funds, insurance). The Act (As Passed) tends to use slightly different cross-references and more explicit modern drafting forms (e.g., clearer punctuation, additional parenthetical notes). Any express statement of legislative purpose is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Both versions list exceptions to "capital asset" including:

      • stock-in-trade (except for certain securities specified)
      • personal effects (with enumerated exclusions such as jewellery, works of art etc.)
      • agricultural land in India, unless situated in specified urban or peri-urban areas (distance/population criteria)
      • Gold Deposit Bonds / deposit certificates under specified schemes (subject to notification)

      Specific wording and scope of some provisos differ between the Bill and the Act; detailed differences follow.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A share held by an FII - both texts include securities held by certain foreign institutional investors within the definition, thereby making such shares capital assets for capital gains purposes.

      • Example 2: A painting held for personal use - both texts treat such work of art as excluded from "personal effects" exclusions (i.e., works of art are excluded from "personal effects" meaning they are treated as capital assets).

      • Example 3: Agricultural land beyond the prescribed distance from specified municipal limits - treated as non-capital asset (agricultural land excluded), subject to the distance/population table in the text.

      Interplay

      The definition cross-references SEBI regulations, the Companies Act, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and other statutory instruments (FEMA, Reserve Bank Act, Companies Act). The document itself does not reproduce attendant rules/notifications; therefore detailed operational interaction with those rules is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Provisions and Practical Impact of Each Change

      • Formulation and placement of sub-clause (22)(b) - FIIs and investment funds: The Bill (old version) uses a compact formulation - "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor or held by an investment fund specified in section 224(10)(a) which has invested in such securities as per the regulations..." The Act (As Passed) expands and rearranges wording: it expressly distinguishes securities held by (i) a Foreign Institution Investor which has invested in accordance with SEBI regulations, and (ii) an investment fund specified in section 224(10)(a) which has invested in accordance with SEBI regulations or under the International Financial Services Centres Authority Act, 2019.

        • Practical impact: the Act explicitly recognises IFSC Authority regulated funds as a route for investments to be treated as capital assets; the Bill's language is narrower/less explicit on IFSC reference. This clarifies tax treatment for funds operating under IFSC regime and reduces interpretive uncertainty for such funds. (Textual difference explicitly shown in the Act.)

      • Unit-linked insurance policy wording (22)(c): The Bill specifies "any unit linked insurance policy issued on or after 1st February, 2021 to which exemption under Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 2) does not apply." The Act states "any unit linked insurance policy to which exemption under Schedule II (Table: Sl. No. 2) does not apply" (without the "issued on or after 1st February, 2021" temporal qualifier).

        • Practical impact: the Act's removal of the temporal qualifier broadens the category to include unit-linked policies irrespective of issuance date (subject to the Schedule II exemption). If intended, this expands the population of policies treated as capital assets and could affect capital gains computation for older policies that were outside scope in the Bill version. The documents themselves do not state legislative rationale.

      • Wording and granular drafting differences concerning agricultural land exclusions: Both texts retain the three-tier population/distance table but differ in presentation and minor phrasing (e.g., numeric rendering of population thresholds, "measured aerially", and references to clause numbering).

        • Practical impact: no substantive policy shift appears; differences are drafting/formatting. However, the Act's more detailed surrounding text (and punctuation) may reduce ambiguity in applying the distance test. The documents do not state transitional or interpretation guidance.

      • Definition of "personal effects": Both texts exclude "personal effects" but expressly list that jewellery, archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures and works of art are excluded from the definition of personal effects (meaning they are capital assets). The Act uses slightly different sub-paragraph labelling and inserts clarifying parentheticals (e.g., "which includes").

        • Practical impact: substantive treatment unchanged; drafting refinements in the Act may aid clarity in disputes concerning what constitutes "personal effects".

      • Cross-references, terminology modernisation and additional inclusions (Act): The Act adds or modifies some cross-references and parenthetical clarifications (for example, a more expansive definition of "securities" consistent with section references, and explicit inclusion of "property includes any rights in or in relation to an Indian company").

        • Practical impact: these drafting adjustments reduce potential interpretive gaps and align the definition with other restructured parts of the Act. The Bill text is somewhat older in phrasing; the Act text reflects finalised cross-references and added coverage (e.g., explicit mention of IFSC in the securities limb).

      • Minor drafting differences elsewhere in Clause/Section 2: There are multiple punctuation, phrase order and parenthetical differences across many definitions (e.g., "books or books of account", "domestic company", "document", "tax" etc.).

        • Practical impact: mostly clarificatory; no express substantive changes to core concepts are apparent from the provided texts. Any implication for interpretation beyond style and clarity is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Taxpayers and funds operating through IFSCs should note the Act's explicit inclusion of IFSC Authority regulated investment funds in the securities limb - this reduces uncertainty about whether securities held by those funds are capital assets for capital gains purposes.

      • The apparent removal of the issuance-date limitation for unit-linked insurance policies in the Act widens the set of policies treated as capital assets; insurers, policyholders and advisors should reassess historical policy disposals for capital gains implications.

      • Drafting clarifications (population/distance table, expanded parentheticals) may reduce contested interpretation on agricultural land exclusions and personal effects; practitioners should rely on the Act text for current analysis.

      • Given many cross-references to other Acts and SEBI/IFSC regulation, coordination between compliance teams (tax, regulatory) is necessary; the document does not supply procedural rules or notifications - those are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts keep an inclusive definition of "capital asset" with targeted exclusions (stock-in-trade, personal effects, certain agricultural land).

      • The As Passed Act expands/clarifies the securities limb to expressly include IFSC regulated investment vehicles and broadens the treatment of unit-linked policies by removing the issuance-date limitation present in the Bill.

      • Most other differences are drafting, cross-reference or formatting refinements intended to reduce ambiguity; no wholesale policy reversal is evident from the texts provided.

      • Practical consequence: IFSC funds and certain insurance policy disposals may face changed capital gains treatment under the Act; stakeholders should review positions against the final Act text.

      • Where the document does not state details (e.g., effective date, legislative intent, administrative guidance), those matters are Not stated in the document.


      Full Text:

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax