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 61 "Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-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 61 Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-residents.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes a presumptive scheme for computing profits and gains of certain specified businesses carried on by non-residents. It matters because it fixes taxable income for designated activities (shipping, aircraft, cruise ships, turnkey power construction, mineral oil services, and certain electronics-manufacturing services) at specified percentages of receipts. Affected parties include non-resident taxpayers and, in one entry, foreign companies and resident companies (as recipients). Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The clause creates a special presumptive computation method for profits and gains from specified business activities, overriding sections 26-54 "to the extent contrary" (Bill: s.61(1)). The clause applies to specified businesses listed in a Table in s.61(2), each paired with a specified assessee and a formula (percentage of defined receipts referred to as A and B). Definitions provided in-text relate to the components A and B for each Table entry. The clause contains limited provisions on claiming actual profits (audit-based), non-allowance of deductions, written down value computation, exclusions where certain sections apply, definition of "plant" (for Sl. No.5), and conditions for resident companies under Sl. No.6.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision covers six specified businesses:

      • Operation of ships (other than cruise ships) - non-residents - 7.5% of (A+B).
      • Operation of cruise ships (conditions prescribed) - non-residents - 20% of (A+B).
      • Operation of aircraft - non-residents - 5% of (A+B).
      • Civil construction/erection/testing/commissioning of plant/machinery in connection with a turnkey power project, approved by Central Government - foreign companies - 10% of amount paid or payable.
      • Providing services/facilities (including supply of plant and machinery on hire) for prospecting/extraction/production of mineral oils - non-resident person - 10% of (A+B).
      • Providing services/technology in India for establishing/operating electronics manufacturing facility or in connection with manufacturing electronic goods to a resident company - non-residents - 25% of (A+B).

      Each entry defines A and B as receipts/amounts either paid/payable (in or outside India) or received/deemed to be received in India depending on the activity; inclusive examples such as demurrage, handling charges are specified for shipping.

      Interpretation

      The clause creates a deeming/presumptive mechanism: the specified percentage of the defined receipts "shall be computed ... and charged to income-tax" under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." Legislative intent, as indicated by the text, is to provide a simplified, predictable taxation basis for specified cross-border activities often difficult to tax under conventional computation rules. The Bill contemplates that, despite sections 26-54 normally governing computation, this clause will govern computation "to the extent contrary" - i.e., where inconsistent, the presumptive rule prevails.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key exceptions and conditions expressly in the clause:

      • Sub-section (3): For Table Sl. Nos. 1-5, the specified assessee may claim that actual profits are lower than presumptive amount if books of account are maintained as per section 62 and accounts are audited with report u/s 63.
      • Sub-section (4): No loss, allowance or deduction under the Act shall be allowed against income computed under subsection (2).
      • Sub-section (5): Written down value of assets used for the specified business shall be computed as if depreciation had been claimed and allowed each relevant year.
      • Sub-section (6): For Sl. No.5, the provisions shall not apply where sections 54, 59, 207 or 527 apply for computing profits or other income referred in those sections.
      • Sub-section (7): "Plant" includes an enumerated list (ships, aircrafts, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatuses and equipments) used for the specified business in Sl. No.5.
      • Sub-section (8): For Sl. No.6, resident company must be operating/establishing an electronics manufacturing facility under a central government notified scheme (MeitY) and satisfy conditions prescribed.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (shipping non-resident): A non-resident ship operator receives sums A (shipments from Indian ports) and B (shipments from foreign ports deemed received in India). Taxable business profits under Clause 61 are 7.5% of (A+B) and no further deductions/losses can be set off against this amount. (No numerical data provided in the document.)

      • Example 2 (turnkey power foreign company): A foreign company receives amounts for erection/testing under an approved turnkey power project. Taxable income is 10% of the amounts paid/payable to the company for such services. The company may, if it maintains books and audits (per s.62/63), claim actual profits lower than 10% (subject to subsection (3)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly displaces sections 26-54 to the extent inconsistent, thereby altering the usual rules for income computation for the listed activities. It cross-refers to sections 62 and 63 (bookkeeping and audit) as preconditions for claiming actual profits, and to sections 54, 59, 207 and 527 to exclude application in specific circumstances for Sl. No.5. No other rules, notifications or circulars are cited in the Bill text. Any interpretive ambiguities arise in determining the scope of "to the extent contrary" and the precise meaning of "deemed to be received in India" in certain entries (Not stated in the document as to clarifying guidance).

      Differences between Section 61 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Terminology for affected persons in Table, Sl. No. 5: Bill (Old Version) uses "Non-resident person"; Act uses "Non-resident."

        • Practical impact: Minor drafting normalization; no substantive difference in scope unless "person" was intended to include residents (not stated). Likely none of substantive effect.
      • Scope reference in subsection (3): Bill refers to "Table: Sl. Nos. 1 to 5"; Act limits subsection (3) to "Table: Sl. Nos. 4 and 5."
        • Practical impact: Act narrows the provision allowing audited actual-profit claim to only items 4 and 5, whereas the Bill permitted such claims for items 1-5. This is substantive: under the Act, non-resident shipping and aircraft operators (Sl. Nos.1-3) lose the explicit ability under s.61(3) to seek audit-based lower profits; they are strictly bound by the prescribed presumptive percentages unless another provision applies. This increases tax certainty for authorities but raises compliance/risk for those taxpayers.
      • Definition/wording of "plant" (subsection (7)/(7) in Bill): Bill states "In this section, 'plant' includes ... used for the purposes of the specified business as mentioned in sub-section (2) (Table: Sl. No. 5)." Act states "For the purposes of sub-section (2) (Table: Sl. No. 5) 'plant' includes ..."
        • Practical impact: The Act confines the definition explicitly for s.61(2) Sl. No.5 purposes, aligning the scope; the Bill's broader phrase "In this section" could potentially have been read to apply the list more widely. The Act therefore narrows or clarifies the application of the definition.
      • Subsection (6) phraseology and numbering: Both refer to exclusions where sections 54, 59, 207 or 527 apply but Bill and Act differ slightly in wording and numbering references; substance appears same.
        • Practical impact: No material change discernible from the texts provided.
      • Subsection (8) proviso on resident company conditions (Sl. No. 6): Bill states "it satisfies the conditions prescribed in this behalf." Act states "it satisfies the conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf."
        • Practical impact: Purely stylistic/drafting; no substantive effect evident.
      • Subsection (9) in Act: Adds an express provision that sections 59 and 207 shall not apply to amounts referred to in s.61(2) Table Sl. No.6. This subsection is not present in the Bill (Old Version).
        • Practical impact: The Act provides an express non-application (exemption) of s.59 and s.207 to the electronics-manufacturing-related Sl. No.6 amounts, removing potential liabilities or withholding/other consequences under those sections for those amounts. This clarifies a gap in the Bill and reduces uncertainty for non-residents providing such services/technology.
      • Subsection (1) wording: Bill says "shall not apply to the specified business mentioned in column B of the Table in sub-section (2)." Act says "shall not apply to the manner of computation of profits and gains of the specified business in sub-section (2)."
        • Practical impact: Act clarifies the limited non-application is to the manner of computation (i.e., computation rules), reducing any unintended broader exclusion. This narrows the non-application and clarifies legislative intent.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers carrying on the listed activities must compute taxable profits using the fixed percentages for the defined receipts. For Sl. Nos.1-5, taxpayers can contest the presumptive amount by maintaining books and obtaining an audit (s.62/63). For Sl. No.6, the requirement that the resident company operates under a notified MeitY scheme and prescribed conditions must be satisfied, else the presumptive rate may not apply. Failure to maintain the requisite books/audit where a taxpayer wishes to claim lower actual profits will foreclose that avenue.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where a taxpayer intends to claim actual profits lower than the presumptive amount, strict compliance with s.62 (books of account) and s.63 (audit report) prerequisites is mandatory. For other taxpayers, documentation evidencing receipt categories A and B and that amounts are paid/payable or received/deemed received in India is essential to compute the base for the percentage.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 61 prescribes presumptive taxation percentages for six specified non-resident activities, simplifying computation by reference to defined receipts.
      • For Sl. Nos.1-5, the Bill allows audit-backed claims to prove actual profits are lower than presumptive amounts, subject to s.62/63 compliance.
      • No deductions, losses or allowances under the Act may be set against income computed under the presumptive scheme.
      • Specific definitions and carve-outs apply: "plant" is defined for mineral-oil services, and Sl. No.6 requires resident company participation under a notified MeitY scheme.
      • Interplay with sections 26-54 is limited: the presumptive method overrides to the extent of inconsistency; precise interaction points may require clarification in practice (Not stated in the document).

      Full Text:

      Section 61 Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-residents.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax