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 37 "Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only" 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 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      This document compares Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) with Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]. Both provisions govern the timing of certain business deductions - making them allowable only on actual payment - and affect taxpayers carrying on business or profession, lenders/financial entities, employers and suppliers (including micro and small enterprises). The enacted version introduces targeted drafting changes and an additional definitional clause; effective date/commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: these provisions operate in the context of computing "income chargeable u/s 26" and interact with section 32(a), section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and section 263(1) (as referenced for due date of filing). The text sets out a non-exhaustive list of categories of sums which are deductible only in the tax year in which they are actually paid. Definitions provided in the text include "specified financial entities" (varying slightly between the versions) and, in the enacted version, an express definitional rule for "the sum payable" in relation to tax/duty/cess etc. The document does not state a legislative intent beyond the text. Not stated in the document: commencement/notification details, legislative debates or policy background beyond the provision itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The provision mandates that specified sums (listed in sub-section (2)) that would otherwise qualify as deductions are allowable only in the tax year in which they are actually paid, irrespective of any contrary provision in the Act, the method of accounting, or the year in which liability was incurred. The enumerated categories include:

      • tax, duty, cess, surcharge or fee levied under any law;
      • employer contributions to provident, superannuation, gratuity or welfare funds;
      • amount payable by an employer in lieu of leave;
      • any sum referred to in section 32(a);
      • interest on loans/advances/borrowings from specified financial entities (differences in wording across versions noted below);
      • amount payable to Indian Railways for use of railway assets;
      • amount payable to micro or small enterprises beyond the time limit u/s 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

      The enacted text adds an express rule (sub-section (3)) allowing certain sums (other than those under clause (g)) to be treated as deductible in the tax year in which liability was incurred if actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for that tax year. Sub-section (5) prevents double deduction where a deduction was already allowed when liability was incurred. Sub-section (6) excludes sums received by the assessee from employees as contributions as covered by section 2(49)(o).

      Interpretation

      The enacted provision clarifies several interpretive points not present in the Bill text. Notably, Section 37 (As Passed) expressly defines for sub-section (2)(a) that "the sum payable" means a sum for which the assessee has incurred liability in the tax year even if it was not payable in that year under relevant law - this clarifies the scope of clause (2)(a) (tax/duty/cess etc.) as to what counts as a "sum payable" for the section. The enacted version expands the language in the interest clause to refer to "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifying phrase "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings," which signals an intent to tie deductibility strictly to the contractual terms governing payment obligations. The enacted definition of "specified financial entities" is more formal and specifies "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government," aligning with an administrative notification route.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs in the text:

      • Sub-section (3) provides an exception for sums (other than clause (g) amounts) paid after the tax year but on or before the due date for filing the return u/s 263(1) - allowing deduction in the earlier year.
      • Sub-section (4) (enacted) treats conversion of interest into a deferred instrument (loan, debenture or other) as not amounting to actual payment.
      • Sub-section (5) bars duplicate deduction where a deduction was already allowed in the year liability arose.
      • Sub-section (6) excludes employee contributions collected by the assessee for funds referred to in section 2(49)(o).

      Not stated in the document: any monetary thresholds, exemptions beyond the listed items, or transitional provisions for existing liabilities at enactment.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company incurs a liability for stamp duty in March (tax year ending 31 March). The stamp duty is not paid until November of the following tax year. Under the enacted section, the duty will be deductible only in the year in which it is actually paid (November year), unless it is paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for the earlier year - in which case sub-section (3) permits deduction in the earlier year. (Hypothetical dates consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: Interest payable under a loan agreement with a scheduled bank is capitalised and converted into a debenture at year-end. Under sub-section (4) of the enacted text, that conversion will not be treated as actual payment and the deduction will not be available unless and until cash payment is made.

      • Example 3: An assessee fails to pay a supplier who is a micro enterprise within the MSMED Act time-limit; the amount paid thereafter falls under clause (g) and is deductible only when actually paid; sub-section (3) explicitly excludes clause (g) from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out.

      Interplay

      The provision explicitly ties into section 26 (computation of income), section 32(a) (capital allowances/depreciation - referred), section 15 of the MSMED Act (timelines for micro/small enterprise payments) and section 263(1) (used only to locate the return-filing due date). Not stated in the document: any cross-reference to accounting standards, tax accounting rules beyond the method-of-accounting override in sub-section (1), or implementing rules/circulars. Interaction with specific sections (e.g., procedural provisions for claims) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Inclusion of "advances" in interest clause (enacted): The Bill referred to "interest on loans or borrowings"; the enacted text expressly includes "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifier "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings."
        • Practical impact: broader capture of financing arrangements (including advances) and a clear linkage to contractual payment provisions - reducing arguments that interest capitalised or documented differently falls outside the provision. Lenders and borrowers must check contracts: if payment is contractually deferred, the deduction waits until actual payment unless allowed by sub-section (3).
      • Addition of definitional clause for clause (2)(a) in enacted text (new sub-section (8)): The enacted section clarifies that for tax/duty/cess etc., "sum payable" includes sums where liability was incurred even if not payable in that year under relevant law.
        • Practical impact: clarifies what liabilities are considered "payable" for the purpose of the section, which reduces uncertainty about whether statutory levies with later payment windows fall within the scope. However, the central rule of actual-payment timing remains; this clause only clarifies liability incidence for clause (a).
      • Refinement of "specified financial entities" wording: The Bill uses "State Finance Corporation" and "notified class" phrasing; enacted text uses "State Financial Corporation" and "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government" and lists "a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank."
        • Practical impact: largely drafting/terminology precision with limited substantive change, but the enacted wording emphasises the Central Government's notification power to specify classes of NBFCs.
      • Expansion and precision of sub-section (4) in enacted text: The enacted clause refers to conversion of "interest on loans or advances or borrowings" into a deferred instrument and states it shall not be deemed actually paid.
        • Practical impact: prevents taxpayers from creating instruments to characterise unpaid interest as "paid" through conversion - the tax consequence is preserved until actual cash payment.
      • Minor drafting differences (tense and phrasing in sub-section (5)): The enacted text is marginally more formal ("when it is paid") than the Bill ("when paid").
        • Practical impact: negligible substantively.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must align accounting and tax positions to actual cash payments for the listed categories. Contracts that permit deferral or conversion of obligations will not give rise to immediate deductions; conversion of interest to debt instruments will not be treated as payment.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should retain contractual documents (loan agreements, payment schedules), proof of payment (bank statements, receipts), employer contribution records, and correspondence with suppliers (notably micro/small suppliers) to substantiate the timing of actual payment. For clause (2)(a) liabilities, documentation proving the year liability was incurred will remain relevant due to the enacted definitional clarity.
      • Payments to micro and small enterprises: Because clause (g) is excluded from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out, delayed payments to MSME suppliers remain deductible only in the year of actual payment - increasing the tax cost of delayed supplier payments relative to some other categories.
      • Contract drafting: Lenders, borrowers and employers should review payment and capitalisation clauses to anticipate tax timing; central government notification powers over classes of NBFCs means market participants should monitor notifications.

      Key Takeaways

      • The enacted Section 37 preserves the core policy: certain deductions are allowable only on actual payment, overriding accounting methods and timing of liability.
      • Enacted text broadens and clarifies the interest clause to expressly cover "advances" and ties deductibility to contractual terms, constraining tax timing planning.
      • A new definitional rule clarifies what counts as a "sum payable" for tax/duty/cess, reducing uncertainty about levy liabilities that are not payable within the year.
      • Conversion of interest into deferred instruments is explicitly not treated as payment; taxpayers cannot convert unpaid interest into other instruments to claim deduction.
      • Payments to micro/small enterprises beyond MSMED timelines remain deductible only when actually paid and are excluded from the limited early-payment allowance under sub-section (3).
      • Administrative implication: monitoring of Central Government notifications (for NBFC classes) and careful contractual drafting will be important to manage timing of deductions.

      Full Text:

      Section 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax