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 31 "Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt" 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 31 Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

        At a Glance

        Clause 31(Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out when provisions for bad and doubtful debts and actual bad debts written off are allowable as deductions u/s 26 (Profits and gains of business or profession). It prescribes differential percentage limits for specified classes of financial institutions and banks, conditions for write-off claims, and rules on a single provision account. The provision principally affects banking and financial-sector assessees and taxpayers engaged in money-lending; effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 31 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Profits and gains of business or profession). The clause addresses deductions in computing business/professional income for (i) provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by specified assessees and (ii) amounts of bad debt written off as irrecoverable.

        Coverage: The clause distinguishes classes of assessees-scheduled and non-scheduled banks, cooperative banks (with exclusions), foreign banks, public financial institutions, State Financial Corporations/Industrial Investment Corporations, and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs)-and prescribes the maximum deductible amounts for provisions. It also sets conditions for when a written-off bad debt qualifies as a deduction and provides rules on the accounting treatment necessary to claim the deduction.

        Definitions/explanations: The text itself defines the qualifying assessees and specifies the percentage limits; no further definitions (e.g., of "total income" or "aggregate average advances") are provided within the clause. "Not stated in the document." regarding any definitions beyond those included.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        The Old Version operates on two distinct but related heads:

        • Sub-section (1): Permits specified assessees to claim as a deduction a stated percentage of their total income (computed before certain deductions) as provisions for bad and doubtful debts. For scheduled banks, non-scheduled banks and most co-operative banks the limit is "not more than 8.5% of the total income of the tax year computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIII" plus "an additional amount up to 10% of the aggregate average advances made by rural branches computed in the manner as prescribed." An elective additional amount (income from redemption of securities under a Central Government scheme) is allowed up to income disclosed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" for scheduled and non-scheduled banks. For foreign banks, public financial institutions, State Financial Corporations/Industrial Investment Corporations, and NBFCs the limit is "not more than 5% of the total income" computed similarly.
        • Sub-sections (2) and (3): Set out when amounts written off as irrecoverable are deductible, subject to conditions. Important ingredients include (a) previous inclusion in computing income or being money lent in ordinary course of banking/money-lending business; (b) recovery treatment where partial recovery occurs; and (c) for assessees claiming the sub-section (1) provision the deduction of written-off amounts is restricted to amounts exceeding the credit balance in the provision account and is allowed only when the assessee has debited the relevant amount to that provision account. Sub-section (3) clarifies that a written-off bad debt does not include any provision for bad and doubtful debt and treats certain unrecorded amounts taken into account under specified accounting standards as deemed written off for purposes of sub-section (2).

        Interpretation

        The legislative text signals an intent to allow specified financial sector entities predictable, percentage-based deductions for provisioning while tightly linking actual write-offs to account entries and prior income computation. The clause distinguishes between a statutory headroom for provisions (sub-section (1)) and the separate deduction of actual irrecoverable debts (sub-section (2)), thereby preserving the primacy of book/accounting entries and prior tax treatment. The limitation that deductible written-off amounts cannot duplicate amounts already provided for (credit balance in the provision account) aims to prevent double dipping.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        Notable carve-outs and conditions in the Old Version:

        • Co-operative banks: exclusions for primary agricultural credit societies and primary co-operative agricultural and rural development banks from the cooperative-bank category in (1)(c) - these are not eligible under that clause.
        • Elective additional amount for scheduled and non-scheduled banks limited to income from the redemption of securities under a Central Government scheme and only where disclosed under the specified head.
        • Deduction of written-off bad debts for assessees using the provision in sub-section (1) is confined to amounts exceeding the credit balance in the provision account and must correspond to debits to that same account in the tax year.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: A scheduled bank with total income (pre-deduction) of INR 100 crore may claim a provision deduction up to INR 8.5 crore; if it has rural branches with aggregate average advances such that 10% of those advances equals INR 2 crore, it may additionally claim up to INR 2 crore as provided under the rural-branch head (subject to manner of computation prescribed).
        • Example 2: An NBFC with total income (pre-deduction) of INR 10 crore may claim provisions up to INR 0.5 crore (5%). If it writes off a specific debt of INR 30 lakh as irrecoverable in the year and that debt had not been covered by the provision account (i.e., exceeds the credit balance), then the write-off may be claimed as a deduction subject to the conditions of sub-section (2).

        Interplay

        The Old Version expressly references "income computation and disclosure standards notified u/s 276(2)" for treatment of certain items not recorded in accounts; no other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited within the clause. Interaction points: the clause implicitly interacts with accounting practices and other provisions governing total income computation (e.g., Chapter VIII references), and with any Central Government scheme that generates income from redemption of securities referred to in sub-section (1)(1)(b). Specific cross-references are limited to section 276(2) and Chapter VIII; further interactions are "Not stated in the document."

        Differences between Section 31[As Passed] and Clause 31 (Old Version)

        • Prescription phrasing for rural-branch advance computation: The As Passed version uses the phrase "computed in the manner as may be prescribed" while the Old Version uses "computed in the manner as prescribed."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed language is marginally more clearly enabling of future subordinate legislation (explicitly permitting prescription); the Old Version's phrasing is functionally similar but marginally less explicit about rule-making power. This is a drafting nuance rather than a substantive policy change.
        • Wording on allowance conditional on debiting provision account: The As Passed text (sub-section (2)(c)(ii)) specifies "such amount shall be allowed only when the assessee has debited any amount of bad debt or part thereof in that tax year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that sub-section." The Old Version (clause (2)(c)(ii)) states "it shall be allowed only when the assessee has debited such amount in that tax year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that sub-section."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed wording explicitly links the allowance to debiting "any amount of bad debt or part thereof" and thereby clarifies that an actual debit of bad debt to the provision account (not merely an arbitrary entry) is necessary. The Old Version's "such amount" could be read more narrowly or more circularly; the As Passed wording reduces interpretive ambiguity.
        • Single-account requirement placement and wording: In the Old Version the requirement for a single account appears as clause (2)(d): "the account referred to in clause (c) shall be only one such account..." In the As Passed version this is integrated as (2)(c)(iii): "the aforesaid account shall be only one such account under sub-section (1) and such account shall be related to all types of advances, including advances made by rural branches."
          • Practical impact: The As Passed language more tightly links the single-account rule to the other clauses in (2)(c) and adds the explicit phrase "aforesaid account" and the explicit inclusion of rural branches in the same provision; functionally the Old Version already required a single account but the As Passed improves cohesion and clarity.
        • Correction of terminology in sub-section (3)(b): The Old Version uses the term "irrevocable" in one place ("becomes irrevocable") whereas the As Passed uses "irrecoverable."
          • Practical impact: This appears to be a corrective editorial change to align terminology with the rest of the section (which consistently uses "irrecoverable" elsewhere). The change avoids potential confusion; it does not appear to alter substantive scope where "irrecoverable" is intended.
        • Minor introductory phrasing: The Old Version's heading to sub-section (3) reads "For the purposes of this sub-section (2)," while the As Passed reads "For the purposes of sub-section (2)," - a minor drafting harmonisation without substantive effect.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Financial institutions must maintain a single provision-for-bad-and-doubtful-debts account (covering all advances) and must ensure that debits to that account in the relevant tax year align with claimed deductions for written-off debts. Failure to maintain the single account or to debit the account appropriately may result in disallowance of write-off deductions. The elective additional amounts (rural branch advance percentage; redemption income) require documentation and disclosure in the return of income.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text requires debiting of amounts to the provision account and prior inclusion in income computation in earlier years or treatment under notified income computation standards; thus, contemporaneous accounting entries, reconciliations of the provision account, disclosure in the return of income, and records evidencing scheme redemptions (where the elective additional amount is claimed) will be material.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause 31 (Old Version) separates a capped, percentage-based provision deduction for specified financial assessees from deduction for actual debts written off as irrecoverable.
        • Scheduled/non-scheduled banks and most cooperative banks get a higher provision ceiling (8.5% of pre-deduction total income) with a possible rural-branch add-on; foreign banks, PFIs, SFCs, SIICs and NBFCs are capped at 5%.
        • Actual bad-debt write-offs are deductible only if conditions are met: prior tax treatment/accounting alignment and, for those utilising sub-section (1), amounts must exceed the provision account credit and must have been debited to that account in the tax year.
        • The clause mandates a single provision account related to all advances, including rural branches.
        • The Old Version contains wording (e.g., "irrevocable") that the As Passed rectifies to "irrecoverable," and the As Passed improves clarity on certain conditions and prescription powers.

        Full Text:

        Section 31 Deduction for bad debt and provision for bad and doubtful debt.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax