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 17 "Perquisite" 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 17 Perquisite.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 17 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) defines "perquisite" for the Part dealing with salaries. It lists categories of benefits treated as perquisites, items excluded from that definition, and furnishes definitions relevant to valuation. The provision matters to employers, employees, and tax authorities because it determines when non-cash and certain employer-paid benefits are taxable as part of salary. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 17 forms part of the Bill's Part on Salaries and establishes the meaning of "perquisite" for the purposes of taxation under the head Salaries. The clause enumerates inclusions (sub-section (1)), exclusions (sub-section (2)), a limited special rule (sub-section (3)), and definitions (sub-section (4)). The text provides limited definitional guidance for key terms such as "fair market value," "family" (by reference to Schedule III Note 2), "gross total income" (by reference to section 122(10)), "hospital," "option," "specified security," and "sweat equity shares." Methods of computation and several operational aspects are left to be prescribed or specified by subordinate rules.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 17(1) lists specific items that shall be treated as perquisites: rent-free accommodation and concessional accommodation where value exceeds rent recoverable or payable (clauses (a) and (b)); benefits or amenities granted free or at concessional rates in two sub-categories (clause (c)); specified securities or sweat equity shares allotted/transferred free or at concessional rates (clause (d)); "any other benefit or amenity" as prescribed (clause (e)); sums paid by the employer in respect of obligations which would otherwise be payable by the assessee (clause (f)); employer-paid life assurance or annuity premiums except contributions to recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds, or specified deposit-linked insurance funds (clause (g)); employer contributions in excess of Rs. 750,000 in a tax year to a recognised provident fund/scheme in section 124(1)/approved superannuation fund (clause (h)); and annual accretion (interest, dividend or similar) to the balance of those funds to the extent relating to the excess contribution (clause (i)).

      Clause 17(2) lists exclusions from the perquisite definition-medical treatment in employer-maintained hospitals; employer payments of employee-incurred medical expenses in specified government/local authority/approved hospitals or for prescribed diseases in hospitals approved by Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner having regard to guidelines; portions of employer-paid health insurance premiums under schemes approved for section 30(c); employer payments of employee-paid health insurance premiums under schemes approved for section 126; employer expenditure on use of a vehicle for commute between residence and office; employer expenditure on medical treatment abroad, travel and stay abroad for treatment, and travel and stay of one attendant-subject to conditions in subsection (3).

      Clause 17(3) conditions the exclusions in sub-clause (2)(f): medical treatment and stay abroad excluded only to the extent permitted by the Reserve Bank of India; travel exclusion applies only in relation to employees whose gross total income (computed before including the expenditure) does not exceed an amount as prescribed.

      Interpretation

      The Bill adopts a largely enumerative approach: a wide variety of employer-provided benefits are captured expressly as perquisites, many of which leave valuation methods to be prescribed. The presence of specific carve-outs for certain employer expenditures (notably employer-provided medical treatment and certain insurance premiums) indicates legislative intent to exclude from perquisite treatment certain welfare-type expenditures or employer arrangements approved under specified statutory schemes. The cross-references to sections 30(c), 122(10), and 124(1), and to Schedule III reflect an intent to integrate perquisite treatment with existing constructs in the tax code. The Bill repeatedly delegates valuation methodology and thresholds to subordinate rules ("as prescribed"/"as specified"), indicating reliance on delegated legislation for operationalisation.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The key exceptions are in sub-section (2): multiple categories of medical treatment and approved insurance arrangements are excluded; commuting vehicle expenditure is excluded; and specific foreign medical treatment/travel exclusions are carved out subject to the conditions in sub-section (3). There are no express provisos for timing, retrospective application, or grandfathering in the text. Thresholds for exclusion tied to gross total income are delegated to prescription.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer provides rent-free accommodation to an employee. That accommodation's value must be computed as a perquisite under clause (a) in the manner prescribed. (Valuation method: Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2: A company allots sweat equity shares to an employee at a discount. Clause (d) treats the fair market value on exercise date less amounts paid/recovered from the employee as a perquisite. (Computation specifics: Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 3: An employer pays an employee's hospital bill incurred at a government hospital. Clause (2)(b)(i) excludes such a payment from perquisite. (Limits or documentation required: Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      Clause 17 cross-references other statutory provisions-section 122(10) for gross total income, section 124(1) for certain provident fund schemes, and section 30(c) and section 126 for approved insurance schemes. The Bill contemplates subordinate rules to prescribe valuation methodology and thresholds; the precise interaction with existing rules/notifications is therefore dependent on those future prescriptions. The text does not state interplay with income-tax rules currently in force or transitional treatment for existing arrangements. Not stated in the document: detailed procedural interaction with Forms, reporting obligations, or timing of inclusion in income.

      Differences Between Section 17 (Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]) and Clause 17 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version)

      • Clarification on scope of clause (c)(ii): The enacted Section 17 inserts the bracketed qualification "[other than employee referred in sub-clause (i)]" into clause (c)(ii), whereas the Bill version lacks that exclusion. Practical impact: removes potential overlap by ensuring that company directors or those with substantial interest (covered by clause (c)(i)) are not also captured under clause (c)(ii)'s income-threshold-based catch-all. This reduces risk of double-counting and narrows the population subject to clause (c)(ii).
      • Prescriptive language differences: The Act generally uses "as may be prescribed" in several places (e.g., computation of rent-free accommodation, fair market value), whereas the Bill often used "as prescribed" or "as specified." Practical impact: "as may be prescribed" signals explicit delegated-legislation power and may be read as emphasising reliance on future rules; "as prescribed" in the Bill conveyed a similar idea but the shift may be stylistic and reinforces the expectation of rules to prescribe methods.
      • Guidance/approval language in medical approvals: Sub-section (2)(b)(ii) in the Bill referred to hospitals approved "having regard to such guidelines as specified"; the Act refers to approval "having regard to such guidelines as may be issued in this behalf." Practical impact: the Act expressly contemplates guidelines to be issued (i.e., an enabling formulation), thereby clarifying the administrative mechanism for approvals and potentially expanding administrative discretion to issue guidelines.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation differences: Several minor differences exist (e.g., phrasing around "computed in such manner, as prescribed" vs "computed in such manner as may be prescribed"; numeric representation "seven lakh and fifty thousand rupees" vs "Rs. 750000"). Practical impact: largely stylistic; numeric representation in the Act may be clearer for readers of consolidated statute.
      • Definitions and examples (stylistic): The definition of "specified security" in the Act includes a slightly different connective phrase regarding employee stock option plans ("therefor" vs omission). Practical impact: no substantive change in meaning apparent from the texts provided; primarily drafting refinement.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in text: Employers must identify and value a broad set of benefits as perquisites, subject to prescribed methods; failure to apply the prescribed valuation (when framed) risks misclassification. Particular focus should be on accommodation benefits, securities/sweat equity allocations, and aggregate employer contributions to retirement funds exceeding Rs. 750,000.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies need to maintain records supporting valuation and the amounts recovered from employees for securities/shares (clause (4)(h)); records evidencing hospital maintenance/approval, approvals for insurance schemes, and the quantum and nature of employer-paid medical or travel expenses will be relevant. Exact documentary requirements: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 17 provides an inclusive list of benefits to be treated as perquisites for salary taxation, capturing accommodation, securities/shares, employer-paid obligations, insurance premiums, and excess retirement contributions.
      • Several exclusions are provided, particularly for employer-provided medical treatment and certain approved insurance schemes; exclusions for foreign medical treatment/travel are conditional.
      • Valuation methods and some operational thresholds are delegated to subordinate prescription or specification; the Bill itself does not provide computational details.
      • Cross-references to existing statutory provisions indicate integration with recognised provident fund and insurance approval frameworks, but detailed interplay awaits rules/notifications.
      • Employers and employees should expect future rules to specify valuation methods, prescribed thresholds, and potentially documentary/compliance processes; the Bill leaves significant operational detail to be prescribed.

      Full Text:

      Section 17 Perquisite.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax