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(101) "short-term capital asset" between the Income‑Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income‑Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced).

      19 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      These materials reproduce Section 2(101) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] and Clause 2(101) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both define "short-term capital asset" and set out special shorter holding periods (twelve months) for certain financial assets. The provision governs classification of capital assets for the purpose of computing capital gains and therefore affects taxpayers disposing of securities, units and specified bonds. Effective date or commencement details are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The provision appears in the definitional section (Section/Clause 2) of the proposed/ enacted income-tax statute and operates as a threshold rule for distinguishing short-term from long-term capital assets. It is linked to several substantive provisions referenced elsewhere (for example, sections governing capital gains and definitions such as "equity oriented fund" and "security"). The text supplies detailed rules for computing the period of holding in a number of specified situations (aggregations, conversions, allotments, transfers on corporate events, etc.).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Section 2(101) / Clause 2(101) defines "short-term capital asset" as a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than twenty-four months immediately preceding the date of its transfer (sub-clause (a)). Sub-clause (b) shortens that period to twelve months in respect of four categories: (i) a security listed on a recognised stock exchange in India; (ii) a unit of the Unit Trust of India; (iii) a unit of an equity-oriented fund; and (iv) a zero-coupon bond. Sub-clause (c) prescribes rules for determining the period for which an asset is held: exclusion of period after company liquidation, inclusion of prior ownership/holding periods in specified corporate restructuring, demutualisation and other events, reckoning commencement dates for assets arising on conversion, allotment, renunciation, free allotment, redemption of GDRs, and a catch-all for other assets to be prescribed.

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a deliberate legislative intent to retain the familiar two-tier holding-period regime that distinguishes financial assets (listed securities, specified units, zero-coupon bonds) for faster long-term treatment (i.e., 12 months threshold) from other assets (24 months). The numerous sub-items in clause (c) reflect an intent to prevent manipulation by artificial breaks in ownership on corporate events and to carry forward relevant holding periods from predecessor owners or prior rights. The provision uses technical cross-references (e.g., to sections 70, 73, 26(2)(j)) to tie the holding-period computation to established tax events. The legislative approach is consistent with traditional anti-abuse and continuity principles in capital gains taxation.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any transitional provisions, grandfathering rules, or special exceptions beyond the enumerated items. The provision does not itself state specific exemptions or alternative treatments other than the twelve-month reduction for the specified categories and the listed inclusions/exclusions in determining holding period. Where the provision refers to "in such manner, as may be prescribed" or to items "as may be prescribed", the details of the prescription (rules) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual purchases shares listed on a recognised Indian stock exchange and sells them after 10 months. Under sub-clause (b)(i) the shares are short-term (held not more than twelve months) and any gain is short-term capital gain. (Text support: definition and b(i)).

      • Example 2: An assessee acquires immovable property and sells after 18 months. As the property is not listed among sub-clause (b) categories, the default 24-month test in sub-clause (a) applies; 18 months is short-term. (Text support: sub-clause (a) and (b)).

      • Example 3: A unit of an equity oriented fund allotted to an employee on conversion of rights on day X - the holding period to be reckoned from date of allotment (sub-clause (c)(C)(I)-(V)). (Text support: specific reckoning rules in (c)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly refers to and interacts with other statutory provisions and schedules: sections 70, 73, 26(2)(j), section numbers defining "equity oriented fund" (section 198(8) in the passed Act), securities definition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, and prescribed rules. The provision leaves certain procedural and technical determinations to subordinate legislation ("as may be prescribed"), creating a dependency on future rules or notifications for complete application. Any interplay with rates, exemptions or indexation is Not stated in the document.

      Comparison: Section 2(101) (As Passed) v. Clause 2(101) (Old Bill)

      Summary of comparative findings:

      • Substantive threshold: Both texts retain the core rule: default short-term period = 24 months; shortened to 12 months for listed securities, UTI units, units of equity-oriented funds and zero-coupon bonds. There is no substantive change in these core thresholds between the old Bill text and the passed Act text as reproduced in the documents.
      • Detailing of holding-period computations: Both texts contain substantially similar lists of inclusions and exclusions when computing the period of holding (liquidation exclusion; carry-over of prior owner holdings in amalgamations/demergers; demutualisation; units/allotments; GDR redemption; conversion events; catch-all for prescribed manner). The ordering and numbering differ slightly as drafting variants, but the functional content matches.
      • Drafting differences: The passed Act version contains largely identical substantive sub-items, though minor editorial differences exist (punctuation, order of cross-references, some wording variants such as "there shall be included the period for which - (I) ...", versus slightly different phrasing in the Bill). These are drafting refinements and do not, on the face of the reproduced texts, alter meaning.
      • References to schedules/sections: Both texts reference the same companion definitions (e.g., "equity oriented fund", securities definitions). Cross-references appear consistent. Any differences in cross-section numbers or schedule references in the larger statute beyond the excerpt are Not stated in the document.
      • Prescriptive delegation: Both texts leave certain determinations "as may be prescribed." No new delegations or removal of delegated powers are visible in the comparison.

      Practical Implications

      • Classification continuity - no substantive policy shift: Tax practitioners and taxpayers can continue to apply the familiar two-tier holding period approach: 12 months for listed securities, UTI/equity fund units and zero-coupon bonds; 24 months for other assets. The passed Act does not materially change thresholds compared with the old Bill text shown.
      • Record-keeping emphasis: The detailed carry-over rules make accurate documentation of acquisition dates, allotment dates, dates of corporate events (demutualisation, amalgamation, demerger, redemption), and predecessor ownership histories important. The text supports continuity of holding periods across such events; supporting documents will be necessary to substantiate inclusion/exclusion claims under clause (c).
      • Transactions around corporate events: The provision reinforces that corporate reorganisations and allotments will not create artificial breaks in holding period for capital gains purposes. Taxpayers should track and preserve corporate scheme documents, share allotment records, demerger/amalgamation orders and valuations used in accounting (revaluations are disregarded for some calculations as noted elsewhere in Section 2 but specific interactions are Not stated in the document beyond the listed items).
      • Dependence on rules: Several aspects are deferred to rules to be prescribed. Practitioners should monitor rule-making for procedural details affecting transitional treatment and computation methods as the statute contemplates subordinate legislation for some technical determinations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both the passed Act and the earlier Bill maintain the two-tier holding-period test (24 months general; 12 months for listed securities, UTI/equity fund units and zero-coupon bonds).
      • No material substantive change in the content of definition 2(101) is apparent between the two reproduced texts; differences are drafting and formatting only.
      • The provision contains detailed rules to carry over holding periods across corporate reorganisations, allotments, conversions and demutualisation events; taxpayers must retain records documenting such events.
      • Several technical determinations are left to rules ("as may be prescribed"); practitioners should watch for notifications and rules implementing these specifics.
      • Effective application will require coordination with related provisions and with prescribed rules that are Not stated in the document.

      Action Points

      • Continue to treat listed securities, units of equity funds/UTI, and zero-coupon bonds as short-term if held <=12 months; treat other assets as short-term if <=24 months, unless and until subordinate rules indicate otherwise.
      • Maintain contemporaneous documentary evidence of acquisition/allotment dates, corporate scheme orders, and redemption requests to substantiate computation of holding period under the detailed sub-clauses.
      • Monitor official publications for rules or notifications prescribed under the enabling phrases in the clause, as those will flesh out calculation methodology and procedural requirements.

      Not stated in the document: implementation date, transitional provisions, any changes to tax rates or indexation treatment linked to this classification, or any explanatory memorandum that might indicate legislative policy considerations beyond the text reproduced.


      Full Text:

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax