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 29 "Deductions related to employee welfare" 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 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      The documents are two versions of Clause/Section 29 dealing with deductions related to employee welfare in the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. They matter because they govern employer tax deductions for contributions to provident, pension, gratuity and related employee welfare funds and determine when employer- or employee-contributed amounts are deductible. A principal change appears in the treatment and interaction of provisions relating to gratuity provisions (sub-clause (d)) and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions (sub-section (2)). The effective date or decision date: "Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]" indicates enactment, but the text contains no express effective date beyond being part of the Act. (If a detail is missing: Not stated in the document.)

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Provisions are placed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and are framed as Clause/Section 29 of the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. Coverage: deductions allowed to an assessee who is an employer when computing income chargeable u/s 26. The text sets out specific categories of deductible sums (contributions to recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds, pension schemes u/s 124, approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions relating to gratuity, and employee contributions credited to funds). The provision also cross-references section 2(49)(o) and section 37. Definitions or further explanations beyond these references are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision delineates six categories in sub-section (1) of sums that an employer (assessee) may deduct while computing business income u/s 26:

      • (1)(a): Contributions to recognised provident funds or approved superannuation funds subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and conditions specified by the Board where contributions are not made annually as fixed amounts.
      • (1)(b): Contributions to a pension scheme referred to in section 124, limited to 14% of the employee's salary (salary here includes dearness allowance, if terms of employment so provide, but excludes other allowances and perquisites) for each employee in the tax year.
      • (1)(c): Contributions to an approved gratuity fund created by the assessee for exclusive benefit of employees under an irrevocable trust.
      • (1)(d): Irrespective of sub-section (2) (in the As Passed text), any provision made for making contribution towards an approved gratuity fund or for payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year.
      • (1)(e): Employee contributions falling within section 2(49)(o) if credited to the employee's account in the relevant fund by the "due date"; "due date" is defined by reference to statutory, contractual or other obligations and the provisions of section 37 shall not be applied to determine the due date under this clause.

      Sub-section (2) provides a general bar on deductions for "provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason" but - in the As Passed text - is expressly made subject to (1)(d). Sub-section (2)(b) forbids double deduction: if a deduction under (1)(d) has been allowed for a provision, no deduction is allowed on actual payments made from such provision.

      Interpretation

      The As Passed wording indicates a legislative intent to clarify the relationship between provisions for gratuity recognised as deductible and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions. The explicit phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" in (1)(d), together with the rephrasing of (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)," indicates that amounts falling squarely within (1)(d)'s scope are intended to be deductible despite the otherwise general rule disallowing provisions for gratuity. The text also shows an intent to prevent double deduction by disallowing deduction on actual payments when a deduction for the provision was already allowed (sub-section (2)(b)).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly stated in the text:

      • Sub-section (1)(a) is subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually.
      • The 14% cap in (1)(b) on pension scheme contributions and the specification of what constitutes "salary" for that purpose (includes dearness allowance only if the terms of employment so provide; excludes other allowances and perquisites).
      • (1)(e)(ii) defines "due date" by reference to statutory or contractual obligations and excludes reliance on section 37 to determine due date.
      • Sub-section (2)(b) prevents deduction both at the time of allowing a provision under (1)(d) and again on actual payment from that provision.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer credits employee contributions to the recognised provident fund on the date required by statute. Under (1)(e), such credited employee contributions are deductible for the employer provided the crediting is done by the defined "due date." (Details of the statutory due date or record-keeping requirements: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: An employer establishes an approved gratuity fund under an irrevocable trust and makes a provision during the tax year to meet a gratuity payment that has already become payable during that tax year. Under (1)(d) (as enacted), that provision is deductible "irrespective of" the general bar in (2). If the employer later disburses amounts from that provision, sub-section (2)(b) prevents a second deduction on the actual payment.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly interacts with section 2(49)(o) (referred to in (1)(e)) and section 37 (referred to in the definition of "due date" under (1)(e)(ii), where section 37 shall not be applied for determining the due date). No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the text. Any further interplay with other provisions of the Income-tax Act (for example, detailed rules for recognition of funds, or compliance requirements under labour laws) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two versions and practical impact

      Identified textual differences and their practical consequences:

      • Wording of sub-clause (1)(a)/(b)/(c)/(e): Minor editorial differences - "paid by way of contribution towards" (As Passed) vs "contribution paid to" (Old Version).
        • Practical impact: None substantive stated in the document; the differences are stylistic only.
      • Sub-clause (1)(d): As Passed inserts the phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)," before describing the provision allowed (provision made for making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year). In the Old Version the clause appears without that introductory qualification.
      • Sub-section (2)(a): Wording change is significant. Old Version: "For the purposes of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;" As Passed: "(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;"
      • Net practical impact(as shown by the text): In the Old Version there is textual tension - (1)(d) permits "any provision made for the purpose of making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year" while (2)(a) appears to say for the purposes of (1)(d) no deduction shall be allowed for provisions made for gratuity on retirement/termination. The As Passed text resolves that tension by expressly making (1)(d) operate "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" and then qualifying (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)". The effect in the statutory text is to prioritise (1)(d): provisions described in (1)(d) are allowable notwithstanding the general prohibition in (2)(a). Practically, this clarifies that certain provisions - contributions towards an approved gratuity fund and payment of gratuity that has become payable during the tax year - are deductible despite the general rule disallowing deductions for provisions for gratuity on retirement/termination, but the remainder of (2)(a)'s prohibition continues to apply where (1)(d) does not cover the specific provision.
      • Other parts (sub-section (2)(b), sub-section (3), and definitions of "due date" cross-referencing section 37) are materially the same in both texts.
        • Practical impact: No change stated in the document for these clauses.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Employers should ensure that contributions to recognised provident and approved superannuation funds comply with prescribed limits and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually; failure to meet those conditions may jeopardise deductibility (prescribed limits and conditions: Not stated in the document).
      • For pension contributions u/s 124, the 14% ceiling and the specific construction of "salary" (inclusion of dearness allowance only if terms of employment so provide; exclusion of other allowances) create a compliance threshold; documents or employment terms evidencing inclusion of dearness allowance will be material (specific record requirements: Not stated in the document).
      • The As Passed clarification around (1)(d)/(2)(a) reduces ambiguity about whether provisions for gratuity may be deductible: certain provisions and payments that have become payable during the tax year fall within deductible categories despite the general prohibition-employers must track whether a deduction has already been taken on a provision to avoid double deduction on actual payment (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Employers should maintain documentation evidencing (i) recognition/approval status of funds, (ii) prescribed limits and Board conditions satisfaction, (iii) terms of employment showing inclusion/exclusion of dearness allowance, (iv) dates when employee contributions were credited (to establish the "due date"), and (v) accounting entries showing whether a deduction was taken on a provision versus on actual payment. (The specific form or period for retention of records: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 29 lists specific employer-related employee-welfare deductions permissible against business income u/s 26.
      • Main deductible categories: recognised provident funds/approved superannuation funds, pension scheme contributions (subject to 14%), approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions for gratuity and credited employee contributions.
      • The As Passed wording expressly prioritises the deductible provisions in (1)(d) over the general prohibition in sub-section (2), resolving a textual conflict present in the Old Version.
      • Double deduction is prevented: if deduction is allowed for a provision under (1)(d), no deduction is allowed on actual payments from that provision (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Definitions and procedural specifics (prescribed limits, Board-specified conditions, details for determining due date beyond the textual cross-reference) are not set out in the document and will require reference to rules or notifications not contained here.

      Full Text:

      Section 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax