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 58 "Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      29 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 58 Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These documents present two texts: Section 58 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (final/statutory version) and Clause 58 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both establish presumptive taxation rules for certain resident taxpayers carrying on small businesses, goods-carriage operations and certain professions. The differences between the Bill (old) and the final Section are limited but material for compliance and computation. Affected parties include eligible individuals, HUFs and firms (excluding LLPs), small transport operators and specified professionals. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: references to sections 26 to 54 (computation rules generally), section 62 and section 63 (books, accounts and audit) and cross-references to Chapter VIII-C and Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. Both texts set out a Table specifying (A) type of business/profession; (B) eligible assessee; (C) turnover/gross receipts limits; and (D) manner of computation (presumptive percentages or specified rates). The texts provide definitional material on "eligible assessee", "specified assessee", "limited liability partnership", and vehicle terminology drawn from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Any other definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both instruments create a special presumptive computation regime and exclude sections 26-54 to the extent contrary. They apply to three categories in the Table: (1) Any business other than goods carriage; (2) Business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriage; and (3) Specified profession/Any profession as referred in section 62 provisions. The regime deems prescribed percentages or specified amounts to be the profits chargeable to tax unless the taxpayer opts to claim actual profits (and then certain conditions apply).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by text: to provide a simpler presumptive basis for computing profits of small taxpayers (business, transport and certain professions), to limit applicability by setting turnover/gross receipts thresholds and to curtail allowance of separate deductions or losses against the presumptive income. The text signals an intent to differentiate receipts realised by banking/online mode from other modes for business (serial no.1) in the final Section. Any further legislative intent or policy background: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions set out in the text:

      • Where taxpayer claims lower actual profit than presumptive amount and total income exceeds basic exemption limit, books must be maintained and accounts audited (sections 62 & 63) - both texts contain this obligation, though cross-references differ slightly in bracketed subsections in the Bill.
      • No loss, allowance or deduction under the Act is permitted against income computed under the presumptive clause (final Section sub-sec (4); Bill sub-sec (4) uses reference to sub-sec (1) - see differences below).
      • Serial no.2 (goods carriage): in the final Section salary and interest to partners in a firm shall be deductible subject to section 35(e); the Bill uses section 35(f) - difference in cross-reference noted below.
      • Written down value for depreciation computed as if depreciation had been claimed and allowed (both texts contain this rule).
      • Anti-avoidance through denial of benefit for five years if eligible assessee declares profit contrary to subsection (1) for any of five succeeding years (both texts contain a similar restriction).
      • Receipt by non-account-payee cheque/bank draft treated as cash for purposes of cash-limit tests (both texts contain this rule).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (business other than goods carriage): An eligible assessee with turnover of Rs. 1.8 crore received 90% by specified banking/online mode and 10% otherwise - under the final Section the presumptive income will be the higher of (A) aggregate of (i) 6% of total turnover or gross receipts which is received by specified banking or online mode during the tax year or before the due date specified in section 263(1) in respect of that tax year; (ii) 8% of total turnover or gross receipts as reduced by turnover covered in (i); or (B) actual profit claimed. Concrete numeric computation: Not stated in the document.

      • Example 2 (goods carriage): Owner of one heavy goods vehicle owned for 6 months: presumptive income component would be Rs.1,000 per ton of gross vehicle weight (or unladen weight as applicable) multiplied by months owned - exact tonnage and resulting sum: Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Both texts reference sections 62 and 63 (books and audit). The final Section expressly excludes applicability of sections 62 and 63 insofar as they relate to the goods-carriage business for monetary limit computations (sub-sec (10)). The Bill has similar references but bracketed cross-references differ (section 62(2) in Bill). Interaction with Chapter VIII-C and section 144 is controlled through conditions defining "eligible assessee" - the final Section uses section 144 and Bill uses section 141 - see differences below. Any further interactions with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 58 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version)Section 58 of the Income-tax Act, 2025
      Reference to cash/banking receipts computation (serial no.1)Presumptive split stated as "(i) 6% realised in specified banking or online mode; and (ii) 8% realised in any mode other than specified banking or online mode."

      Final text phrases percentages as (i) "6% of total turnover or gross receipts which is received by specified banking or online mode during the tax year or before the due date specified in section 263(1) in respect of that tax year; (ii) 8% of total turnover or gross receipts as reduced by the turnover or gross receipts covered in (i)."

      Practical impact: clarifies timing (before due date u/s 263(1)) and frames calculation as aggregate components rather than separate buckets - may affect timing of receipt recognition for percentage split.

      Cross-reference for professions (serial no.3)Refers to "Any profession as referred to in section 62(1)(a)" and defines "specified profession" accordingly.

      Final Section refers to "Specified profession as referred to in section 62(4)."

      Practical impact: narrows or shifts the definitional source - this may change which professions are captured depending on final sectioning of section 62; practitioners must check section 62's numbering in enacted Act.

      Definition of "eligible assessee" - earlier deduction conditionBill: excludes those who "has not claimed any deduction u/s 141;"

      Final Section: excludes those who "has not claimed any deduction u/s 144;"

      Practical impact: substantive difference depending on content of sections 141 vs 144 (which are not provided). This alters who qualifies as eligible assessee; taxpayers must verify which section was intended in final enactment.

      Cross-reference for deduction in goods carriage (salary/interest to partners)Bill references section 35(f).

      Final Section references section 35(e).

      Practical impact: differing cross-references change applicable conditions and limits for partner salary/interest deduction when computing income for firms in goods-carriage business; the precise effect depends on content of section 35(e)/(f).

      Application/exclusion of sections 62 and 63 for goods carriageBill: does not have an explicit sub-sec equivalent to final Section (10) wording; it has a provision in sub-sec (10) stating "In this section, --" and then definitions; wording differs.

      Final Section sub-sec (10) expressly states sections 62 and 63 shall not apply insofar as they relate to the goods-carriage business and that gross receipts/income from that business shall be excluded in computing monetary limits under those sections.

      Practical impact: provides clearer statutory exclusion for goods-carriage business from book-keeping/audit monetary limits, which affects compliance thresholds.

      Practical Implications

      • Taxpayers must verify which professions/businesses fall within "specified" definitions by reference to the enacted section 62 numbering, as the Bill and final Section cite different sub-sections.
      • Receipts realised by specified banking/online mode have a timing qualifier in the final Section (receipt during tax year or before due date u/s 263(1)), which can affect whether a receipt counts towards the preferential 6% computation - practitioners should ensure receipts are processed in that timeframe to secure the favourable computation.
      • Firm owners in goods-carriage business must check whether partner salary/interest deduction is governed by section 35(e) (final) or 35(f) (Bill) and apply the relevant limits accordingly; this may change taxable income for such firms.
      • The final Section's express exclusion of sections 62 and 63 for the goods-carriage business in computing monetary limits reduces the risk of triggering audit/book-keeping thresholds by aggregating such receipts - but requires careful reading to apply exclusions correctly.
      • Record-keeping: where an assessee claims actual profits lower than presumptive income and total income exceeds basic exemption, books and audit obligations apply - taxpayers should retain books and be prepared for audit if invoking that route.
      • Receipt by non-account-payee cheque or bank draft is treated as cash for the cash-receipt tests - practitioners should track payment modes and classify non-account-payee instruments accordingly.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts establish a presumptive taxation regime for small businesses, goods-carriage owners and certain professionals with turnover thresholds and prescribed computation methods.
      • Differences between the Bill and the final Section are mainly in cross-references (section numbers), phrasing of the banking/online receipts rule and the deduction cross-reference for partner remuneration in firms operating goods carriages.
      • Final Section clarifies timing for banking/online receipts and expressly excludes sections 62/63 for goods-carriage businesses when computing monetary limits, reducing ambiguity for transport operators.
      • Taxpayers seeking to claim actual lower profits must maintain books and obtain audit reports where total income exceeds exemption limit - a compliance cost and evidentiary requirement.
      • Where the Act omits or alters cross-references present in the Bill, practitioners must consult the enacted sections (62, 63, 35, 141/144 etc.) to determine precise eligibility and deductions.

       


      Full Text:

      Section 58 Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax