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 62 "Maintenance of books of account" 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 62 Maintenance of books of account.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 62 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the requirement to keep and maintain books of account for persons carrying on specified professions, businesses, and certain notified professionals, with thresholds and conditions for record-keeping. It matters for taxpayers (individuals, HUFs, professionals and businesses) and the revenue department as it defines who must maintain books and what the Board may prescribe. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 62 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) is placed under the heading "Profits and gains of business or profession" and addresses maintenance of books of account. The clause sets out who shall keep books (sub-section (1)), the conditions under which persons carrying on business or professions must maintain books (sub-section (2)), the Board's power to prescribe particulars and retention periods (sub-section (3)), and the definition of "specified profession" (sub-section (4)). Definitions: "specified profession" is defined by example (legal, medical, engineering, architectural, accountancy, technical consultancy, interior decoration, information technology or company secretary) and by residual Board notification. The clause provides thresholds by quantum of income and by turnover for triggering the requirement.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 62(1) requires that any person carrying on a specified profession; any person carrying on business; any person carrying on a profession (not being one listed in clause (a)) and satisfying conditions in subsection (2); or any other person carrying on profession notified by the Board, shall keep and maintain books of account and other documents to enable the Assessing Officer to compute total income under the Act.

      Ingredients / elements: The obligation is triggered either by categorical status (specified profession; notified profession) or by satisfying conditions in subsection (2) for persons conducting business or non-specified professions. Sub-section (2) sets out four alternative tests (a)-(d) each of which, if met, requires maintenance of books.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The clause aims to place an objective record-keeping burden on classes of assessees to facilitate assessment. Thresholds (income and turnover) function as objective bright-line tests. The Board's delegated power in sub-section (3) signals intent to allow administrative specification of form, content and retention. The inclusion of a residual notification power both in sub-section (1)(c) and in the definition of specified professions indicates an intent to retain flexibility to capture additional professions by administrative action.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and modifications: Clause 62(2)(c) excludes certain assessees (specifically, "the assessee, other than the assessee referred to in section 61(2) (Table: Sl. No. 6)") from the requirement when they claim income lower than deemed profits - effectively a condition that triggers record-keeping where claimed profits are lower than deemed profits. Clause 62(2)(d) modifies threshold amounts for individuals and Hindu undivided families lowering or changing the monetary triggers. No other provisos or exemptions are provided in the clause. Specifics regarding the referenced sections and table entries are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A chartered accountant in private practice (a specified profession) must keep and maintain books of account regardless of income/turnover thresholds because clause (1)(a) covers specified professions.

      • Example 2: A small trader whose total turnover exceeded Rs. 10 lakh in any of the three preceding years must maintain books under clause (2)(a).

      • Example 3: An individual running a small business with income of Rs. 2.2 lakh and turnover of Rs. 3 lakh - whether books must be maintained depends on clause (2)(d): the Bill sets thresholds for individuals at income exceeding Rs. 2.5 lakh and turnover exceeding Rs. 2.5 lakh; thus in this scenario, record-keeping would not be triggered. (Numeric thresholds are as stated in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Clause 62(3) expressly delegates to the Board the power to prescribe the books, particulars, form, manner, place of maintenance and retention periods. Clause 62(1)(c) and sub-section (4)(b) permit the Board to notify additional professions. No specific rules or notifications are reproduced in the document. Therefore, operational detail (forms, formats, timelines) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Clause 62 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 62 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Scope - inclusion of other notified persons: The Bill (Old Version) Clause 62(1)(c) expressly includes "any other person carrying on profession notified by the Board in this behalf." The Section 62 (final/updated) omits this separate sub-clause (c) but retains in sub-section (4)(b) that the Board may notify "any other profession."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's explicit sub-clause (1)(c) created an express standalone category of persons required to maintain books by Board notification; the later Section collapses such notification power into the definition of "specified profession." This narrows the textual placement of Board's notification power but substantively preserves the Board's ability to notify additional professions. Administrative clarity may be affected (different location for the Board's power), but substantive coverage appears similar.
      • Threshold figures - numeric expression and apparent error: Clause 62(2)(d) in the Bill (Old Version) states that for individuals/HUFs, clauses (a) and (b) shall be modified to the extent of income exceeding "two lakh and fifty thousand rupees" and turnover exceeding "two lakh and fifty thousand rupees." Section 62(2)(d) (updated) sets the modified thresholds at income exceeding "Rs. 250000" and turnover exceeding "twenty-five lakh rupees."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's turnover threshold for individuals/HUFs appears to contain a likely drafting error (turnover same as income figure - Rs. 250,000) whereas the updated Section clarifies that the turnover threshold is Rs. 25 lakh. This is a substantive correction: in the Bill an individual/HUF threshold for turnover would have been unrealistically low (and inconsistent with earlier clause (a) turnover threshold of Rs. 10 lakh), whereas the updated Section aligns turnover threshold with a higher limit (25 lakh), materially loosening record-keeping obligations for small individual/HUF businesses that have turnover between Rs. 2.5 lakh and Rs. 25 lakh.
      • Cross-reference differences in clause (2)(c): The Bill's clause (2)(c) disqualifies only "the assessee, other than the assessee referred to in section 61(2) (Table: Sl. No. 6)," from claiming profits lower than deemed profits; the updated Section 62(2)(c) refers to "the assessee referred to in section 58(2) or 61(2) (Table: Sl. Nos. 4 and 5)."
        • Practical impact: The updated Section changes which cross-referenced assessees are caught by this provision (different table/serial numbers) - this may broaden or narrow the category, depending on the contents of those referenced rows. The Bill attempt to carve out a specific exception; the updated text rearranges the references. Exact practical effect requires consulting the referenced tables (Not stated in the document).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers falling under the enumerated categories (specified professions, notified professions, businesses meeting income/turnover thresholds) must ensure maintenance of books sufficient for computation of total income. Failure to maintain adequate books may expose taxpayers to adverse assessments or penalties; however, specific penalties are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The Board may prescribe the exact books and particulars; until such prescriptions are issued, the minimum necessary is to retain contemporaneous records evidencing income, receipts, expenses and inventories as may be applicable. Retention periods are to be specified by the Board; current retention expectations are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 62 requires maintenance of books of account by specified professions, businesses and notified professions to enable computation of total income.
      • Objective thresholds trigger the obligation for persons not in specified professions: income in excess of Rs. 120,000 or turnover in excess of Rs. 10 lakh in any of the three preceding years; similar thresholds apply for newly set up businesses expected to exceed those figures.
      • Individuals and HUFs have modified thresholds in clause (2)(d): income exceeding Rs. 250,000 and turnover exceeding Rs. 250,000 (as stated in the Bill), which materially differs from the turnover figure in the later Section (Noted difference above).
      • The Board is empowered to prescribe the specific books, particulars, form, manner, place and retention period; operational details depend on ensuing rules/notifications.
      • Residual administrative flexibility exists via Board notifications to include additional professions within the record-keeping requirement.
      • Cross-references to other sections (58/61 or 61(2) Table entries) affect application where deemed profits are prescribed - exact impact requires consulting those provisions (Not stated in the document).

      Full Text:

      Section 62 Maintenance of books of account.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax