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 8 "Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person" 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 8 Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person from specified entity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      This document compares Section 8 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (As Passed) with Clause 8 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both texts address the tax treatment where a specified person receives capital assets or stock-in-trade from a specified entity on dissolution or reconstitution. The most significant change in the As Passed text is removal of a two-year time-limit for the Board to issue guidelines with Central Government approval. Affected parties: firms, other associations of persons or bodies of individuals (non-companies, non-co-operative societies) and their partners/members; tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Income-tax Act, 2025, Section 8 (As Passed) and the corresponding Clause 8 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both provisions cover a deemed transfer for income-tax purposes when a specified person receives capital asset(s) or stock-in-trade from a specified entity in connection with dissolution or reconstitution. Definitions provided in the texts include "specified entity", "specified person", and "reconstitution of the specified entity" with three illustrative circumstances. The texts set valuation at fair market value on the date of receipt for computing the full value of consideration. The Bill/Act contemplates issuance of guidelines by the Board (with prior Central Government approval) to remove difficulties in giving effect to the section and to provide parliamentary oversight by laying such guidelines before both Houses.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The clause/section applies when a specified person receives any capital asset or stock-in-trade (or both) from a specified entity during a tax year in connection with the dissolution or reconstitution of that entity. The specified entity is deemed to have transferred the asset(s) to the specified person in the year of receipt.

      Elements/ingredients: (1) Existence of specified entity (firm or other association of persons or body of individuals, not a company or co-operative society); (2) Specified person (partner or member of such entity in any tax year); (3) Receipt by the specified person during the tax year of capital asset(s) or stock-in-trade from the specified entity in connection with dissolution or reconstitution; (4) Deemed transfer by the specified entity in the year of receipt; (5) Valuation rule: fair market value on the date of receipt is deemed full value of consideration for that deemed transfer; (6) Taxability: profits and gains arising from the deemed transfer are deemed income of the specified entity and chargeable under "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Capital gains".

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The provision treats distribution of assets on dissolution/reconstitution as a deemed transfer by the entity, thereby pulling the tax incidence to the entity for profits/gains arising on such deemed transfer. This prevents tax-neutral distribution that would otherwise defer or avoid taxation on unrealised gains at entity level. The valuation method (fair market value on date of receipt) indicates an intent to capture economic value at the point of distribution. The power to issue guidelines (with Central Government approval) and parliamentary laying suggests the legislature anticipated implementation issues and delegated limited rule-making to the Board subject to oversight.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs/conditions: The text provides definitional limits: only applies to non-company, non-co-operative society entities and their partners/members. The reconstitution scenarios are listed exhaustively in three sub-clauses (cessation of partners/members; admission of new partners while at least one prior person continues; change in shares among continuing partners). No express exemptions or threshold monetary limits are provided in the section.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A firm (non-company) dissolves and transfers stock-in-trade to Partner A in the tax year. The firm is deemed to have transferred the stock-in-trade in that year; fair market value on the date of receipt by Partner A is treated as full consideration and any profits/gains on that deemed transfer are taxed as income of the firm under profits and gains of business or capital gains. (All facts hypothetical; consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: In a reconstitution where partner X leaves and partner Y is admitted but at least one old partner continues, the assets allotted to a continuing partner on reconstitution are treated as deemed transfers by the entity in the year of receipt and valued at fair market value for tax purposes.

      Interplay

      Interactions with other provisions: The section calls out section 67(10) as a related provision for which the Board may issue guidelines to remove difficulties; the text anticipates procedural or interpretive interplay with that section. No other statutory cross-references or Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the documents provided.

      Differences and Practical Impact

      Identify key differences between As Passed and Old Version

      TopicClause 8 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)Section 8 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (As Passed)
      Guidelines - time limitContains express sunset: "No guideline under sub-section (4) shall be issued after the expiration of two years from the 1st April, 2026."Sunset provision removed; no time limit on issuance of guidelines is present.
      Placement/numbering of paragraphsDefinitions appear in sub-section (7); parliamentary laying provision numbered (6); ordering slightly different.Definitions appear in sub-section (6); parliamentary laying provision numbered (5); numbering adjusted.
      Valuation language"In this section, fair market value ... shall be deemed to be the full value...""For the purposes of this section, fair market value ... shall be deemed to be the full value..."
      Minor textual/phrasing differencesClause (2)(ii) ends with "as per this Act."Clause (2)(ii) omits the phrase "as per this Act."
      Formatting/punctuationMinor punctuation differences (comma placement) and conjunctions observed.Formatting adjusted; no substantive change indicated by punctuation alone.

      Practical impact of each change

      • Removal of two-year sunset for guidelines: Material and substantive. Under the Old Version the Board's power to issue guidelines to remove difficulties was time-limited (expiration two years from 1 April 2026). The As Passed removes that temporal restriction, leaving the guideline-making power open-ended (subject to prior Central Government approval and parliamentary laying).

        • Practical impact: the executive (Board, with Central Government approval) retains ongoing delegated authority to issue interpretive/implementation guidelines for this section and section 67(10) indefinitely. This increases administrative flexibility for the tax authorities and prolongs the period in which procedural or interpretive guidance may be promulgated; it may also raise concerns for taxpayers about continuing rule-making after enactment.

      • Renumbering/relocation of definitions and parliamentary laying clause: Largely formal; no substantive legal consequence beyond internal organization of the provision.

        • Practical impact: minimal for taxpayers; potential administrative housekeeping for drafters and citators.

      • Valuation phrasing change ("In this section" -> "For the purposes of this section"): Stylistic; intended effect appears the same - to make clear fair market value on date of receipt is the deemed full value of consideration.

        • Practical impact: negligible.

      • Omission of "as per this Act" in clause (2)(ii): A textual streamlining.

        • Practical impact: none apparent from the text - chargeability under heads of income remains specified.

      • Punctuation/formatting edits: No substantive impact.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Entities (non-company firms/AoPs/BoIs) should expect taxation at the entity level on deemed transfers when assets are distributed on dissolution/reconstitution. Tax computation must use fair market value on date of receipt. Removal of the guideline time-limit means taxpayers should monitor for future guidelines that may clarify procedures, timelines or valuation mechanics; such guidance may be issued beyond the initial two-year window.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The provision emphasises fair market value on the date of receipt - taxpayers should retain contemporaneous valuation evidence, asset records, minutes/agreements of reconstitution or dissolution, and any communications documenting the distribution to specified persons. Where guidelines are later issued, they may prescribe forms or procedures; records should be kept to comply with such future guidance.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section 8 treats distribution of capital assets or stock-in-trade to partners/members on dissolution/reconstitution as a deemed transfer by the entity taxable at the entity level.
      • Fair market value on the date of receipt is the deemed full value of consideration for tax computation.
      • Main substantive change from the Bill to the Act: removal of a two-year sunset on the Board's power to issue guidelines (with Central Government approval) - guidelines may now be issued without the earlier temporal limit.
      • The Board's guideline-making power remains subject to prior Central Government approval and parliamentary laying; procedural oversight continues.
      • No monetary thresholds, exemptions, or procedural timeframes are specified in the section; details may be left to guidelines (which are now not time-limited).
      • Taxpayers should preserve valuation evidence and documents evidencing dissolution/reconstitution and distributions; watch for future guidelines that may prescribe methods or forms.

      Full Text:

      Section 8 Income on receipt of capital asset or stock-in-trade by specified person from specified entity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax