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 49 "Site Restoration Fund" 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 49 Site Restoration Fund.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 49 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) creates a Site Restoration Fund framework allowing deductions for deposits by petroleum/natural gas prospectors/producers into specified accounts and prescribes tax treatment on withdrawal, transfer and on-sale of assets acquired under the scheme. It affects assessee-taxpayers engaged in petroleum/natural gas operations and the tax department. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 49 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) falls under Profits and gains of business or profession. The clause establishes a Site Restoration Fund mechanism for entities carrying on prospecting, extracting, or producing petroleum or natural gas in India who have an agreement with the Central Government. The clause provides for (a) deduction for deposits into a special account or the site restoration account computed as per Schedule X; (b) taxation on amounts withdrawn or transferred; and (c) a deeming provision for sale/transfer of assets acquired under the scheme within eight years. Definitions or further explanations are not provided in the clause itself; references are made to "the scheme" and "the deposit scheme" and to Schedule X for computation rules.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 49 covers three primary elements:

      • Eligible taxpayers: An assessee carrying on a business of prospecting, extracting, or producing petroleum or natural gas, or both, in India, who has an agreement with the Central Government for this business.

      • Deduction entitlement (Sub-section (1)): A deduction is allowed on deposits to a "special account" or the "site restoration account," computed in accordance with Schedule X.

      • Taxation on withdrawals/transfers (Sub-section (2)): Any amount withdrawn or transferred "at the time of closure or otherwise" shall be charged to tax in the year of transfer/withdrawal as per Schedule X.

      • Recapture on sale/transfer of assets (Sub-section (3)): If an asset acquired under "the scheme or the deposit scheme" is sold or transferred by the assessee to any person at any time before the expiry of eight years from the end of the tax year in which it was acquired, that part of the cost of the asset "relatable to the deduction allowed under sub-section (1)" is to be deemed profits and gains of business in the year of sale and taxed accordingly.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a common fiscal technique: allow tax relief for contributions to a restoration fund while providing rules to recapture that relief if the asset or the fund is diverted or realised within a specified holding period. The clause expressly ties computation and timing rules to Schedule X, indicating legislative intent to set detailed procedural and computational matter in the schedule. The eight-year holding period in Sub-section (3) is an explicit anti-abuse/time-based recapture rule.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (deposit and later withdrawal): An assessee deposits sums into the site restoration account and claims a deduction under Sub-section (1). If the assessee later withdraws funds from the account at closure, the withdrawn amount will be charged to tax in the year of withdrawal in accordance with Schedule X. (This is a direct reading; numerical computation method is Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2 (asset sale within eight years): An assessee acquires equipment using funds attributable to the deduction and sells the equipment within eight years. The portion of the equipment's cost "relatable to the deduction" will be deemed business income in the year of sale and taxed under Sub-section (3). (How to compute "such part of the cost" is Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly references Schedule X for computation and tax treatment details. The clause also indicates a relationship between "the scheme" and "the deposit scheme," but does not reference other statutes, rules, notifications, or circulars within its text. Specific inter-statutory interactions or implications for capital allowance regimes, transfer pricing, or accounting treatment are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 49 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version)

      • The Act version (Section 49(2)) expressly states that amounts withdrawn or transferred are from "the aforesaid accounts" (i.e., the special account or site restoration account). The Bill version omits the explicit source reference in Sub-section (2).
        • Practical impact: The Act clarifies that only amounts withdrawn from those specified accounts are taxed on withdrawal/transfer, reducing potential ambiguity about taxing unrelated withdrawals; the Bill left room for interpretive uncertainty.
      • Section 49(1) in the Act refers to deduction "on the basis of deposit to special account or site restoration account and computed as per the provisions of the Schedule X." The Bill used slightly different punctuation and included the phrase "the site restoration account."
        • Practical impact: Largely stylistic; both link computation and deduction to Schedule X. No substantive difference beyond form.
      • The Bill (Clause 49(3)) contains a specific deeming rule: if an asset acquired under "the scheme or the deposit scheme" is sold or transferred by the assessee within eight years from the end of the tax year of acquisition, then "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 taxed accordingly. The Act (Section 49(3)) removes the eight-year deeming language and instead states more generally that where any asset acquired as per the special scheme or deposit scheme (as referred to in Schedule X) is sold or otherwise transferred in any tax year, it "shall be charged to tax in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule."
        • Practical impact: The detailed deeming mechanism and explicit eight-year period in the Bill are replaced by delegation to Schedule X. This shifts substantive detail from the clause into Schedule X, possibly allowing for different timeframes, methods of recapture, or other tax consequences. The Act reduces prescriptive statutory mechanics at clause level and creates potential uncertainty until Schedule X is consulted. It also removes the explicit eight-year anti-abuse holding period that would have triggered immediate recapture under the Bill.
      • The Act explicitly uses "special scheme, or the deposit scheme, as referred to in Schedule X" whereas the Bill used "scheme or the deposit scheme."
        • Practical impact: The Act ties naming directly to Schedule X, suggesting a formal taxonomy of schemes to be defined there; otherwise, minimal substantive effect.
      • The Act centralises computation and recapture rules in Schedule X; the Bill contained at least one substantive recapture/deeming rule in the clause itself.
        • Practical impact: Users must consult Schedule X under the Act for substantive details; under the Bill some essential consequences were available in the clause itself. This changes where practitioners will look for operative rules and may affect transitional, interpretive and timing questions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear records evidencing deposits into the special/site restoration account and any subsequent withdrawals or transfers, and must track the acquisition date of assets purchased under the scheme to determine whether the eight-year recapture window applies. Calculation of the "part of the cost relatable to the deduction" is a material compliance issue; the clause presumes such computation but does not prescribe a method (computation rules are delegated to Schedule X or left unspecified in the clause).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Records should include the agreement with the Central Government (as the clause conditions entitlement on such an agreement), ledgers of deposits to the designated accounts, dates and amounts of withdrawals/transfers, invoices and asset acquisition documents specifying which assets were acquired "as per the scheme or the deposit scheme," and documentation supporting allocation of cost between deductible-funded and non-deductible portions. Specific documentary requirements are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 49 provides an express deduction for deposits to special/site restoration accounts for petroleum/natural gas undertakings with a Central Government agreement, with computation to follow Schedule X.
      • Withdrawals or transfers from the fund are taxed in the year of withdrawal/transfer under Schedule X rules.
      • There is an explicit eight-year recapture/deeming rule: sale/transfer of assets acquired under the scheme within eight years will result in portion of cost attributable to prior deduction being taxed as business income in the year of sale.
      • The clause leaves computational and procedural specifics to Schedule X; several operative details (calculation methodology, definitions of "scheme"/"deposit scheme", and effective date) are Not stated in the document.
      • Taxpayers must preserve documentation linking deposits to specific asset acquisitions and be prepared to demonstrate allocation if assets are disposed within eight years.

      Full Text:

      Section 49 Site Restoration Fund.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax