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 26 "Income under head Profits and gains of business or profession" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      20 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      These documents present the enacted Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 ["As Passed"] (Document 1) and an earlier draft of Clause 26 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Both provisions charge income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and set out an inclusive list of items treated as business/professional income. The changes between the two texts are largely phrasing and cross-reference adjustments, with a few substantive drafting shifts that may affect the scope of recapture and the cross-referenced deduction regime. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business or profession, partners and firms, and the tax department; effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: both texts are presented as Clause/Section 26 under the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025 and fall under the Part D heading "Profits and gains of business or profession". The clause(s) seek to define income chargeable under that head and provide an inclusive list of items to be regarded as such income. The texts contain internal cross-references to other provisions - e.g., section 35(e), section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, section 46 and in the older draft a reference to "Chapter IV-D". Definitions beyond the inclusive list are Not stated in the document. The documents do not state commencement/notification details.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both versions establish that income from any business or profession carried on during the tax year is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Each provides an inclusive list (sub-section (2)) covering: profits/gains of business or profession; compensation/payments on termination/modification of management/agency/contract; compensation for vesting management in Government; income of trade/professional associations for services to members; profits on sale of licences or export incentives; value of benefits/perquisites from business/profession; partner remuneration/amounts from firm; sums for not carrying out business activity or for not sharing know-how/intangible rights; Keyman insurance proceeds; fair market value of inventory when converted/treated as capital asset; and specific recapture where a capital asset (other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) is demolished/destroyed/discarded/transferred and its whole expenditure was allowed as a deduction under specified provisions.

      Interpretation

      The texts adopt an inclusive definition approach: items listed are expressly brought into business/professional income. The language used (e.g., "shall include") indicates a non-exhaustive list as typical in tax charging provisions. The enacted text shifts certain cross-references and expands the recapture reference to other statutory provisions (see below). Legislative intent as an overarching aim is to capture receipts related to business/professional activity and to provide recapture rules where capital allowances/deductions have been previously claimed - explicit legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The provision contains specific carve-outs in sub-clause (h)(i)(A) and (B) excluding (A) sums received on transfer of rights chargeable under the head "Capital gains" and (B) compensation from the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund under terms agreed with Government of India. Sub-section (4) excludes rental income from letting of residential house by the owner from this head and directs that such income be charged under "Income from house property". Other general exceptions or thresholds are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A partner receives salary/commission from the firm. The payment is included under clause (g) and is to be treated in accordance with the extent allowed under the deduction cross-reference (Document 1: "section 35(e)"; Document 2: "Chapter IV-D").
      • Example 2: A company sells an import licence and realises a profit on sale; this profit is included under clause (e) as business income.
      • Example 3: Machinery (a capital asset other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) on which the whole expenditure was allowed under the cited deduction provision is demolished and some sum is received; clause (k) brings the receipt into business income (but the governing deduction reference differs between the texts).

      Interplay

      Both variants cross-refer to other provisions for deductions and for recapture. The enacted text explicitly references section 35(e) and u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 alongside section 46 of the 2025 Act for recapture scenarios; the earlier draft references "Chapter IV-D" for partner remuneration and refers only to section 46 for recapture. Any interplay with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Documents and Practical Impact

      • Opening paragraph/sub-section (1) wording: Old draft states "The income from any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the tax year shall be chargeable...". Enacted version states "The incomes referred to in sub-section (2) shall be chargeable...".
        • Practical impact: drafting shift narrows the immediate charging phrase to the items enumerated in sub-section (2), while the prior draft framed the charge as broader "income from any business or profession". The practical interpretive difference is limited because both texts ultimately list the items; the enacted wording may emphasise the inclusive list as the operative charge. The precise legal effect is contingent on interpretive practice and is Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (e): Old text uses "input licence"; enacted text uses "import licence".
        • Practical impact: this is a material textual difference. If "input licence" in the old draft was unintended or a drafting error, the enacted text clarifies that profits on sale of import licences are included. The documents do not state whether "input licence" was an error or intended; therefore, the practical effect is that the enacted text clearly captures profits on sale of import licences and similar export incentives. Any consequences for licences termed "input licence" are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (g) - cross-reference for partner payments: Old draft refers to deduction "under Chapter IV-D" as a deduction in computing the firm's income; enacted text refers to "section 35(e) as a deduction in computing the income of the firm".
        • Practical impact: this is a substantive cross-reference change which may alter how partner payments are assessed against firm deductions. Whether section 35(e) reproduces, narrows or expands the former Chapter IV-D rules is Not stated in the document; stakeholders must compare the referenced provisions to determine precise tax treatment and availment of deductions.
      • Clause (h)(ii) - scope of excluded consideration verbiage: Old draft ends with "information or technical know-how likely to assist..." whereas enacted text reads "information or technique likely to assist...".
        • Practical impact: marginal wording change; potential interpretive nuance between "technical know-how" and "information or technique" may slightly broaden or shift the class of protected items, but the documents provide no legislative clarification on intent.
      • Clause (j) - manner of valuation: Old draft uses "determined in the manner, as prescribed"; enacted text uses "determined in the manner, as may be prescribed".
        • Practical impact: enacted wording explicitly contemplates rule-making power ("may be prescribed"), but both formulations are typically used to enable subordinate legislation; the practical change is minimal and procedural - specific rules are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (k)(ii) - recapture reference: Old draft brought sums into business income where whole of the expenditure had been allowed as a deduction "u/s 46". Enacted text broadens the reference to "u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 46 of this Act."
        • Practical impact: the enacted version expressly captures cases where capital asset expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD (1961 Act) in addition to section 46 of the 2025 Act, thereby broadening recapture to assets benefiting from section 35AD allowances. This is a substantive expansion of recapture scope; however, the precise operation depends on the text of section 35AD and section 46, which are Not stated in the document.
      • General drafting and punctuation differences: There are minor editorial and structural differences (e.g., "by whatever name called" vs "by whatever named called", placement of commas and hyphens).
        • Practical impact: mostly stylistic, though consistent drafting reduces interpretive ambiguity.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should note the broadened recapture reference (inclusion of u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961) - assets whose costs were wholly allowed under such provisions may generate business income upon demolition/destruction/discard/transfer. Firms and partners must review the applicable deduction cross-reference (section 35(e) in enacted text) when accounting for partner remuneration and when determining firm taxable income. The documents do not provide procedural guidance or transitional rules; transitional treatment is Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where receipts arise from termination/modification of management/agency/contract, sale of licences, non-competition agreements, or Keyman insurance proceeds, taxpayers should retain contracts, calculation workings, valuations (for fair market value of inventory converted to capital asset), details of allowances claimed u/s 35AD or section 46, and firm resolution/partnership deeds evidencing partner payments - the document does not prescribe specific records but the inclusive list implies evidentiary needs relevant to these items.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts adopt an inclusive list of items treated as income from business or profession; enacted text rephrases the charging language to focus on the items enumerated in sub-section (2).
      • Enacted text clarifies "import licence" (instead of "input licence" in draft), which clarifies inclusion of profits on sale of import licences/export incentives.
      • Cross-reference for partner remuneration shifted from "Chapter IV-D" (draft) to "section 35(e)" (enacted), which may affect deduction mechanics - compare the referenced provisions to determine impact.
      • Recapture scope expanded in the enacted text to include cases where whole expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to section 46 - potentially broader taxability on demolition/destruction/discard/transfer of certain capital assets.
      • Several wording and drafting adjustments are editorial in nature; where substantive differences exist, the documents do not supply the surrounding provision texts or legislative history to resolve interpretive issues.

      Full Text:

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax