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 28 "Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 28 Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 28 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance." It sets out categories of deductible expenditures in computing profits and gains of business or profession. It matters to taxpayers carrying on business or profession, lessors/tenants and tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 28 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 dealing with "Profits and gains of business or profession." Scope: provides that specified amounts shall be allowed as deduction in respect of premises, machinery, plant or furniture "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession. The clause enumerates categories (insurance premium, land revenue/local rates/municipal taxes, rent when tenant, current repairs when occupied otherwise than as a tenant, and cost of repairs when premises occupied by the assessee as a tenant). Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision covers deductions in computing business/professional profits for expenses in respect of premises, machinery, plant or furniture that are "wholly and exclusively" used for business/profession. Enumerated deductible items are:

      • (a) any premium paid in respect of insurance against risk of damage or destruction of the assets;
      • (b) land revenue, local rates or municipal taxes paid;
      • (c) rent paid where the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant;
      • (d) amount paid on account of current repairs, not being capital expenditure, when premises are occupied otherwise than as a tenant;
      • (e) cost of repairs, not being capital expenditure, when the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant.

      Subsection (2) provides that where the asset is partly used or not wholly and exclusively used for business/profession, deduction under subsection (1) shall be restricted to a fair proportionate part as determined by the Assessing Officer, having regard to usage for business/profession.

      Interpretation

      The text conditions deductions on assets being "wholly and exclusively" used for business/profession; that phrase operates as a threshold requirement. The enumeration is restrictive: only specified categories qualify. The use of the phrase "not being capital expenditure" signals an intention to exclude capital improvements from deduction, limiting allowance to current/repair-type expenditure. The mechanism in subsection (2) entrusts apportionment to the Assessing Officer, implying case-by-case factual determination of proportionate business use.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, thresholds, or procedural conditions appear in Clause 28 beyond the "wholly and exclusively" condition and the exclusion of capital expenditure. Specific exceptions (e.g., measuring apportionment methods, documentation requirements) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A manufacturing firm uses a factory building solely for manufacturing; premium paid for insurance on the building would be deductible under clause (a) because the premises are wholly and exclusively used for business.
      • Example 2: A proprietor runs a business from part of a building and uses part for private residence. Only a fair proportionate part of municipal taxes and repairs, as determined by the Assessing Officer, would be deductible under subsection (2).
      • Example 3: A tenant pays rent for business premises; rent paid is deductible under clause (c) provided the premises are wholly and exclusively used for business.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other statutory provisions, Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document. The clause's reference to determination by the Assessing Officer suggests interaction with assessment procedures under the Income-tax Code, but specific cross-references are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 28 of Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] and Clause 28 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

      • Scope of use: The Old Version (Clause 28) conditions deductions on premises, machinery, plant or furniture being "wholly and exclusively" used for the purposes of business or profession. The Passed Act (Section 28) omits "wholly and exclusively" and allows deductions in respect of such assets "used for the purposes of the business or profession," thereby broadening applicability.
      • Repairs to machinery/plant/furniture: The Passed Act adds a new sub-clause (f) expressly permitting deduction for "current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture, not being in the nature of capital expenditure." The Old Version contains no equivalent clause.
      • Tenant repairs: The Old Version's clause (e) refers to "cost of repairs, not being capital expenditure, when the premises occupied by the premises occupied by the assessee as a tenant" (contains a drafting repetition). The Passed Act's clause (e) clarifies that the deduction applies where the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant and "where he has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises." Thus the Passed Act adds an explicit requirement that the tenant has undertaken responsibility for repairs.
      • Wording on capital expenditure: The Old Version uses the phrase "not being capital expenditure"; the Passed Act uses "not being in the nature of capital expenditure." This is a drafting refinement but may have interpretive significance.
      • Assessing Officer determination: Both versions retain subsection (2) restricting deduction to a fair proportionate part where assets are partly used or not wholly and exclusively used; text is substantially the same though the Old Version's trigger language references "wholly and exclusively" use while the Passed Act's trigger is broader given the removal of that phrase in subsection (1).
      • Minor drafting: The Old Version appears to contain a typographical repetition in clause (e). The Passed Act corrects and expands the drafting.

      Practical impact of each change

      • Removal of "wholly and exclusively": Broadens entitlement to deductions where assets are partly used for business/profession - potentially increasing allowable deductions but subject to apportionment under subsection (2).
      • Addition of repairs to plant/machinery/furniture: Clarifies and expressly allows current repair deductions for tangible assets beyond premises - likely reduces disputes where such repairs were previously not expressly listed.
      • Tenant repair undertaking requirement: Tightens the conditions for a tenant's deduction for repairs by requiring an undertaking to bear repair costs - may limit deductions where no express undertaking exists.
      • Drafting refinement ("in the nature of"): May affect interpretation in borderline cases by focusing on the character of expenditure, rather than the technical label "capital expenditure."
      • Subsection (2) retained: Apportionment by the Assessing Officer remains the mechanism to deal with mixed-use assets; practical disputes may shift from entitlement to apportionment methodology.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must establish that assets are "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession to claim full deductions. Where use is mixed, subsection (2) exposes taxpayers to assessment-time apportionment. The exclusion of capital expenditure demands careful classification of spending as current repair versus capital improvement to avoid disallowance.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Although the clause does not prescribe records, the textual requirements imply that taxpayers should retain evidence of exclusive business use (floor plans, usage logs), invoices and nature-of-expenditure documentation to substantiate repairs as current (versus capital). Where a tenant seeks deduction for repairs, documentation of tenancy terms and any undertaking to bear repairs is likely to be material-however, the Bill does not state precise documentary requirements.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 28 enumerates limited categories of deductible expenses relating to premises, machinery, plant and furniture for business/profession.
      • Full deduction in the Old Version is conditioned on assets being "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession.
      • Capital expenditure is excluded; only current repairs or recurring costs qualify under the repair heads.
      • Subsection (2) permits apportionment for mixed-use assets by the Assessing Officer on a fair proportionate basis.
      • The Bill does not set out procedural, evidentiary or measurement standards; those are Not stated in the document.
      • Ambiguities likely to arise concern classification of expenditure (current v. capital), proving "wholly and exclusively" use, and apportionment methodology.
      • Specific operational details (effective date, transitional rules, forms or rulings) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 28 Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax