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 38 "Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession" 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 38 Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 38 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (hereafter "Old Version"). This commentary analyses Clause 38 as presented in the Bill (Old Version) and, where relevant, highlights differences introduced in Section 38 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] (hereafter "As Passed"). The provision determines particular receipts that will be deemed profits and gains of business or profession and thus taxable; it primarily affects taxpayers carrying on business or profession, successor entities on reorganisation, and tax administration. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 38 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version addresses "profits and gains of business or profession" and sets out specific categories of receipts to be treated as income for tax purposes. The Old Version enumerates paragraphs (a)-(e) describing receipts that will be taxable, conditions in sub-section (2), set-off mechanism in sub-section (3), treatment for successor in business in sub-section (4), applicability where business ceased in sub-section (5), and definitions in sub-section (6).

      Definitions/explanations provided in the Old Version: "sold" (includes transfer by exchange or compulsory acquisition but excludes certain amalgamation transfers); "successor in business" (lists amalgamated company, resulting company on demerger, any other person succeeding the assessee, and succeeding firm). No further definitions (for example, of "scrap value" or specific computation terms) are provided in the Old Version.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Old Version (Clause 38) applies to specified receipts deemed to be profits and gains of business or profession and chargeable to income-tax. The categories (sub-section (1)) are:

      • (a) Recapture where an allowance/deduction was earlier allowed for a trading liability, loss or expenditure: (i) value of benefit from cessation or remission of the trading liability (including unilateral write-off in accounts) in the year benefit accrues; or (ii) any amount obtained (cash or otherwise) in respect of such loss or expenditure in the year obtained - whether the business/profession continues or not.
      • (b) On sale/discard/demolition/destruction of a tangible asset owned by the assessee where money payable plus scrap value [A] exceeds written down value [C]: computation in the year money becomes due - if money plus scrap value [A] is less than actual cost [B], then [A] - [C]; otherwise [B] - [C].
      • (c) On sale of an asset representing capital expenditure on scientific research (referred to in section 45(1)(a) or (c)) sold without having been used for other purposes, where sale proceeds plus total deductions allowed under that section exceed the capital expenditure - the excess or the amount of deduction so made, whichever is less, in the year asset sold.
      • (d) Where a deduction for a bad debt (or part) u/s 31(2) was allowed and any subsequent recovery exceeds the difference between such debt and the amount allowed - the excess in the year of recovery.
      • (e) Where a deduction was allowed for any special reserve u/s 32(e), any amount subsequently withdrawn from such reserve in the year of withdrawal.

      Sub-section (2) sets conditions for applicability: (a) applicability for (1)(a) only when allowance/deduction has been made in assessment for any earlier tax year towards the trading liability/loss/expenditure incurred; (b) for (1)(b) only when asset was used for business purpose and depreciation claimed and allowed u/s 33; (c) for (1)(c) only when assets have not been used for other purposes.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: the provision is one of recapture/anti-avoidance - to tax receipts that reverse or offset earlier deductions or allowances made by the taxpayer in computing business/professional income. The text signals a principle of matching tax consequences to economic reversal of earlier tax advantages. Specific interpretive principles: recapture is triggered where benefit accrues or amount is obtained; amount and timing are tied to year of accrual/receipt; particular treatment for successor entities and ceased businesses is provided.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs/conditions are limited to the conditions in sub-section (2) (as summarised above). No further exceptions or monetary thresholds are provided in the Old Version. Provisos such as exclusions on amalgamation transfers in sub-section (6)(a) are included for the meaning of "sold".

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (recapture on remission): A trader claimed and was allowed a deduction for a trading liability in year Y. In year Y+2 the creditor unilaterally writes off the liability in the trader's accounts and the trader enjoys a benefit by cessation of liability. Under clause 38(1)(a)(i), the value of that benefit is deemed business income in Y+2. (No numerical illustration given in the document.)
      • Example 2 (asset sale recapture): A tangible asset with actual cost [B], written down value [C], and scrap value [A] is sold in year Z. If money payable plus scrap value [A] exceeds [C], compute deemed income as [A] - [C] where [A] < [B], else [B] - [C], in year when money becomes due. (No numeric amounts provided in the document.)

      Interplay

      Interactions with other provisions: the Old Version expressly cross-references section 31(2) (bad debts), section 32(e) (special reserve), section 33 (depreciation), and section 45(1)(a) or (c) (capital nature expenditure on scientific research). No Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are mentioned in the Old Version. Further statutory cross-references are limited to the meanings given in sub-section (6). Any additional interplay with other provisions or tax code mechanisms is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Old Version (Clause 38 of the Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and As Passed (Section 38 of Income-tax Act, 2025):

      • Reference to section 33(12)(a)(i): As Passed, clause (b) explicitly cross-references "tangible asset [as referred to in section 33(12)(a)(i)]" and refers to "written down value of such assets [C]" and "scrap value [A]". Old Version uses a generic "tangible asset" and references "depreciation ... u/s 33" without the subsection citation.
        • Practical impact: As Passed narrows or clarifies the class of tangible assets contemplated (by specific cross-reference) and formalises terminology for components of the computation; this could affect whether certain assets qualify for the deemed income computation.
      • Sub-section (1)(c) research-asset cross-reference: Old Version refers to "section 45(1)(a) or (c)". As Passed refers to "section 45(1)(a)(i)".
        • Practical impact: Change of cross-reference narrows or alters the category of scientific research capital assets caught; may change which research assets are covered when sold.
      • Sub-section (2)(a) temporal wording: Old Version: deduction/allowance "has been made in assessment for any earlier tax year"; As Passed: "when an allowance or deduction has been made in assessment for any tax year towards the trading liability, loss or expenditure incurred".
        • Practical impact: As Passed removes the explicit "earlier" qualifier and expands wording to "any tax year" (but retains concept of allowance in assessment); this could broaden scope to include allowances in the same or earlier years (interpretation depends on other provisions), potentially increasing situations where recapture applies.
      • Sub-section (2)(b) condition: Old Version requires asset "has been used for the purpose of business, and depreciation has been claimed and allowed thereon u/s 33". As Passed requires use "for the purpose of business or profession, and depreciation has been claimed and allowed thereon u/s 33(2)".
        • Practical impact: As Passed explicitly includes "profession" (not only business) and cites section 33(2) specifically; a clarified narrower cross-reference may affect applicability where depreciation is governed by that subsection.
      • Sub-section (6)(b) wording for "successor in business": Old Version states '"successor in business" means and includes--' and lists items (ii)-(iv). As Passed states '"successor in business" means--' and lists similar items but omits the phrase "and includes" (minor drafting difference) and removes the word "includes".
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting; potential interpretive effect about whether the list is exhaustive versus illustrative - As Passed more strongly reads as exhaustive.
      • Minor drafting and numerical/cross-reference adjustments appear throughout (e.g., precise subsection citations for section 33 and section 45).
        • Practical impact: Clarificatory drafting may affect scope and interpretation; where As Passed provides a specific cross-reference it is likely more restrictive and precise than the Old Version.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: taxpayers who have claimed deductions/allowances for liabilities, bad debts, reserves, depreciation or scientific-research capital expenditures must monitor subsequent recoveries, remissions, sales or withdrawals, since such amounts may be taxable when the benefit accrues or proceeds are received.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: maintain contemporaneous records proving (i) assessment files showing the earlier allowance/deduction; (ii) dates and values of recoveries, write-offs, or remission; (iii) asset accounts showing cost, written down value, scrap value and depreciation claimed and allowed u/s 33; (iv) documentation for special reserves and withdrawals; and (v) documentation of successor-in-business transfers. These records are essential to determine timing and quantum of deemed income under the clause.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 38 of the Bill (Old Version) is a recapture provision taxing receipts that reverse earlier deductions/allowances in computing business/professional income.
      • It covers remission/cessation of liabilities (including unilateral write-offs), recoveries of previously deducted losses/expenditure, gains on disposal of tangible assets exceeding written down value, recoveries of bad debts, and withdrawals from specified reserves.
      • Conditions for applicability hinge on earlier allowance in assessment (for liabilities), prior use and depreciation claim for assets, and non-use for other purposes for research assets.
      • Successor entities on amalgamation/demerger or other succession are explicitly within scope for treating such receipts as the successor's income.
      • Differences between the Old Version and As Passed mainly reflect more specific cross-references, inclusion of "profession" in certain places, and tighter drafting that can narrow or clarify scope - these drafting changes may materially affect applicability in edge cases.

      Full Text:

      Section 38 Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax