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 48 "Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      26 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 48 Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 48 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides for tax treatment of deposits into designated development accounts for tea, coffee and rubber and for recapture rules on withdrawal or disposal of assets acquired under the relevant schemes. It matters to taxpayers engaged in growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber in India, and to the tax department administering deductions and recapture. Effective dates or enactment timing are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 48 sits within the chapter on "Profits and gains of business or profession" in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - that is, it addresses deductible deposits and subsequent chargeability to tax for certain primary-sector activities. The clause ties deductibility and recapture to "the provisions of the Schedule IX" (repeatedly).

      The text provides limited definitional content: it identifies the relevant taxpayers as "an assessee ... carrying on business of growing and manufacturing tea or coffee or rubber in India" and references deposit accounts denominated as "tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account." No statutory definitions for "designated account", "scheme", "deposit scheme", or "Schedule IX" are reproduced in the document; therefore, the precise mechanics and definitions are dependent on Schedule IX and other parts of the Bill/Act.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause has three sub-sections. Sub-section (1) states that an assessee engaged in growing and manufacturing tea, coffee or rubber in India "shall be allowed a deduction on the basis of deposits into the tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account and computed as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Sub-section (2) provides that any amount withdrawn, utilised or released "shall be charged to tax in the year in which the amount is transferred or withdrawn as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Sub-section (3) imposes a recapture rule when an asset acquired under the scheme is sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee before the expiry of eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired: "such part of the cost of such asset as is relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession of the tax year in which the asset is sold or otherwise transferred and shall accordingly be chargeable to income-tax as the income of that tax year."

      Interpretation

      The clause establishes a regime of initial tax relief (deduction for qualifying deposits) followed by a recapture mechanism to neutralise tax benefit where withdrawals occur or assets are disposed of within a specified protective period. Legislative intent, as inferable from the text, is to incentivise deposits into sector-specific development accounts while preventing permanent tax avoidance by recapturing benefit on early withdrawal or premature disposal of assets acquired using those amounts. The explicit eight-year recapture period in sub-section (3) signals a policy choice to protect the revenue over a medium-term horizon; the deeming formula targets that portion of asset cost that corresponds to prior deductions, thereby effectuating partial reversal of tax benefit rather than full clawback of proceeds.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any provisos, exceptions, exemptions, thresholds, or carve-outs beyond the three sub-sections reproduced. The clause itself contains no explicit provisos limiting application (for example, no treatment for transfers between related parties, no inflation adjustments, no apportionment rules beyond "such part of the cost ... as is relatable to the deduction"). Any further exceptions would need to be located in Schedule IX or elsewhere in the Bill.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee deposits funds into a "tea development account" and claims deduction computed under Schedule IX. If the assessee later withdraws those funds in a subsequent tax year, under Clause 48(2) the withdrawn amount is chargeable to tax in the tax year when the transfer/withdrawal occurs as per Schedule IX.

      • Example 2: An assessee uses deposited funds to acquire machinery under the scheme; if the machine is sold by the assessee within eight years from the end of the tax year of acquisition, the portion of the asset's cost that is attributable to the earlier deduction is "deemed to be the profits and gains" of the year of sale and taxed accordingly (i.e., recapture of benefit).

      • Example 3: Not stated in the document: how apportionment is to be calculated for part disposals, or treatment on sale to related parties; therefore specifics on such illustrations are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause repeatedly instructs that computation and chargeability are "as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Therefore, detailed operational rules, calculation formulae, timings, compliance processes and potentially definitions are deferred to Schedule IX. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the reproduced text. Interaction with general anti-avoidance provisions, transfer pricing provisions, or other parts of the tax code is Not stated in the document.

      Differences betweenSection 48of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 48 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Specified account nomenclature and breadth: The Bill (Clause 48) expressly names "tea development account, coffee development account or rubber development account or any other designated account" as the basis for deduction; the enacted Section 48 refers more generically to "the special account or deposit account".
        • Practical impact: The Bill's language is more explicit about permitted account types and expressly contemplates additional "designated account(s)"; the Act's broader, less prescriptive phrasing may permit administrative flexibility but less clarity for taxpayers.
      • Timing of tax charge on withdrawals: Clause 48(2) (Bill) specifies that amounts "shall be charged to tax in the year in which the amount is transferred or withdrawn as per the provisions of the Schedule IX." Section 48(2) (Act) states that amounts "withdrawn or utilised or released from the aforesaid accounts at the time of closure or otherwise shall be charged to tax as per the provisions of the Schedule IX" (no explicit year-of-withdrawal phrasing).
        • Practical impact: The Bill provides clearer timing (tax year of transfer/withdrawal); the Act's formulation defers to Schedule IX but is potentially less precise about timing, which could create interpretive uncertainty about whether charge arises at closure, at withdrawal, or u/rs in Schedule IX.
      • Recapture on disposal of assets: Clause 48(3) (Bill) contains a specific deeming provision: where an asset acquired under the scheme is sold/transferred within eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired, "such part of the cost of such asset as is relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession" of the year of sale and charged accordingly. Section 48(3) (Act) is shorter and states that where any asset acquired as per the special scheme or deposit scheme is sold or otherwise transferred in any tax year, it "shall be charged to tax in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule" (no eight-year period; no deeming of a relatable part of cost).
        • Practical impact: The Bill imposes a specific recapture window (8 years) and a deemed income mechanism that clearly recovers deductions previously claimed; the Act removes the explicit 8-year trigger and the specific deeming formula, deferring recapture mechanics to Schedule IX - potentially narrowing or broadening recapture depending on what Schedule IX specifies. Taxpayers face greater certainty under the Bill about recapture scope and timing, while the Act shifts the substantive rule into Schedule IX and may change the practical incidence of recapture.
      • Reference to "site restoration fund" and cross-purpose text: The Bill's explanatory note (as reproduced) mentions that Clauses 48 and 49 "provide for tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account and Site Restoration Fund..." The clause text itself is focused on tea/coffee/rubber accounts. The Act version omits any accompanying note.
      • Practical impact: The Bill situates Clause 48 in a broader legislative design that includes site restoration for extractive activities; the Act, as excerpted, is self-contained and lacks that contextual pointer.
      • Terminology differences ("special scheme"/"deposit scheme" vs "scheme"/"deposit scheme"): The Act uses "special scheme or the deposit scheme"; the Bill uses "scheme or the deposit scheme."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting variance; potential interpretive effect depends on definitions in the Bill/Act (not provided here).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaged in tea, coffee or rubber cultivation/manufacture who claim deductions under Clause 48 need to monitor withdrawals and the holding period of assets acquired under the scheme closely to determine recapture liabilities. The eight-year window imposes a medium-term compliance risk-early disposals create immediate tax charges under the deeming rule. The specific calculation of the "part of the cost ... relatable to the deduction" will be determinative; practitioners must consult Schedule IX for the precise methodology. Failure to follow the Schedule IX computation or to account for transfers/withdrawals in the year of event would expose taxpayers to assessments and interest/penalties (penalties/interest provisions Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The clause implies the need for contemporaneous and durable records of deposits into the designated accounts, documentary evidence of use of deposited funds to acquire particular assets, acquisition dates, asset cost breakdowns, and records of any transfer/withdrawal or sale including dates and consideration. Records should support apportionment between deductible-funded cost and other funding. Schedule IX likely prescribes precise evidentiary requirements; absent that text, taxpayers should maintain detailed books documenting the flow of funds between bank accounts, account ledgers for the designated accounts, asset registers linking assets to sources of finance, and sale/transfer documentation.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 48 establishes a conditional deduction for deposits into sector-specific development accounts for tea, coffee and rubber, with computation and operational detail delegated to Schedule IX.
      • Withdrawals or utilisations are taxable in the tax year of transfer/withdrawal in accordance with Schedule IX, creating timing certainty in the clause text (subject to Schedule IX specifics).
      • The clause contains an express eight-year recapture period for assets sold/transferred before expiry of that period, with a deeming rule targeting the portion of asset cost attributable to earlier deduction.
      • The clause does not provide detailed calculation, procedural, or exceptions language within the text; those details are left to Schedule IX and other parts of the Bill/Act.
      • Taxpayers must maintain records linking deposits to account entries and to assets acquired, and should anticipate recapture on early dispositions; specific compliance steps and penalties are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 48 Tea development account, coffee development account and rubber development account.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax