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 74 "Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets" 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 74 Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 74 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) is a proposed statutory provision titled "Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets." It seeks to modify how sections 72 and 73 operate where capital assets form part of a block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed. The provision affects taxpayers holding depreciable assets and the tax department in the assessment of capital gains. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 74 expressly interacts with section 2(101) and with sections 72 and 73 of the Income-tax law corpus (the document identifies prior Acts: this Act, the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922). The clause applies to "a capital asset forming part of a block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed" under the cited Acts. The text establishes that, "Irrespective of anything contained in section 2(101)," the provisions of sections 72 and 73 shall be subject to Clause 74's sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Definitions or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document beyond the reference to blocks of assets and depreciation having been allowed under the specified enactments.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 74(1) creates a special rule overriding normal definitions in section 2(101) where the asset is part of a depreciable block. It subjects sections 72 and 73 to the special rules in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Sub-section (2) sets out a formulaic rule: where, during a tax year, the full value of consideration received or accruing for transfer of one or more assets in a block of assets exceeds the aggregate of (a) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for such transfer; (b) the written-down value (WDV) of the block at the start of the tax year; and (c) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block acquired during the tax year, then the excess is "deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets." Sub-section (3) provides for the special case when the block of assets "ceases to exist" because all assets in the block are transferred during the tax year; it prescribes (a) the cost of acquisition of the block as the WDV at the beginning of the year increased by actual cost of assets acquired during the year; and (b) that the income received or accruing from such transfers "shall be deemed to be short-term capital gains." The text also makes cross-reference to depreciation allowances under the present Bill and the prior Acts cited.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the text: The clause intends to treat certain proceeds from transfer of assets that form part of a depreciable block as capital gains of short-term character, rather than allowing ordinary block-set-off or rollover principles u/ss 72 and 73 to wholly neutralise such receipts. The explicit override of section 2(101) suggests a deliberate re-characterisation of qualifying receipts even if the ordinary meaning of "capital asset" would be displaced. The prescriptive arithmetic in sub-section (2) sets out an order of priority-expenses of transfer, opening WDV, and cost of additions-before any excess is treated as capital gain. Interpretive principles: the clause is drafted in mandatory terms ("shall be deemed"), signaling a non-discretionary reclassification where the numeric condition is met. The clause identifies the event triggering the rule (receipt/ accrual of full value of consideration during the tax year).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, carve-outs, thresholds or exceptions beyond the two factual scenarios covered in sub-sections (2) and (3) are provided in the text. Any additional exclusions or special cases (including the content of sub-section (4) referred to in sub-section (1)) are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly places sections 72 and 73 subject to its sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), indicating that the special computation will displace the regular block-of-assets adjustments in those sections to the extent the Clause applies. The Clause also references section 2(101) (the definition of "capital asset") and purports to operate "Irrespective of anything contained" in that definition. Interaction with rules, notifications or circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 74 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 74 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and practical impact

      • Scope of application of subsections: Clause 74 (Bill) includes sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) as being the subject-matter overriding sections 72 and 73; Section 74 (Act) refers only to sub-sections (2) and (3).
        • Practical impact: If sub-section (4) in the Bill contained an additional rule (not present in the Act text provided), its omission from the enacted Section 74 narrows the special overriding regime; however, the documents do not state the content of any sub-section (4). Therefore the practical consequence is that any additional rule intended in the Bill's sub-section (4) does not appear in the Act text as provided. (If that sub-section contained substantive obligations or exceptions, taxpayers and practitioners would need to account for its absence; the documents do not state what that would be.)
      • Wording differences on expenditure: Clause 74(2)(a) uses the phrase "expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for such transfer;" Section 74(2)(a) uses "expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer;"
        • Practical impact: The change from "for" to "in connection with" may marginally broaden the scope of deductible transfer-related expenditure in the enacted Section 74 compared to the Bill's text, though the documents do not elaborate on legislative intent or examples to demonstrate a substantive difference.
      • Description of resulting gains in sub-section (3)(b): Clause 74(3)(b) states "shall be deemed to be short-term capital gains." Section 74(3)(b) states "shall be deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets."
        • Practical impact: Both formulations aim to characterise the income as short-term capital in nature; the Act's wording ties the gains specifically to "transfer of short-term capital assets," perhaps emphasising the nomenclature consistent with other sections. There is no stated practical divergence in taxation outcome in the documents.
      • Order and citation of predecessor enactments: The Bill and Act both reference the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but the sequence differs between the two.
        • Practical impact: No substantive legal effect is stated in the documents; ordering of cited statutes is a drafting variation only.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers disposing of one or more assets that belong to a depreciable block must compute whether the full value of consideration in a tax year exceeds (i) transfer expenditure, (ii) opening WDV of the block, and (iii) cost of any additions in that year. If so, the excess will be treated as short-term capital gains. This creates a compliance necessity to segregate receipts by block and to maintain precise records of WDV and acquisition costs. Failure to apply the deeming rule may lead to incorrect characterisation of income and corresponding assessments or disputes.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text implies stakeholders should maintain documentary evidence of (a) full value of consideration received or accruing, (b) expenditure wholly and exclusively for the transfer, (c) opening written-down value of the block, and (d) actual cost of assets acquired during the tax year that fall within the block. The Clause's reliance on such numeric comparisons makes contemporaneous accounting records and asset schedules essential.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 74 creates a special deeming rule for capital gains where assets forming part of a depreciable block are transferred.
      • It overrides section 2(101) and places sections 72 and 73 subject to the Clause's sub-sections (2), (3) and (4).
      • Where consideration received/accruing for transfers in a tax year exceeds transfer expenditure, opening WDV and costs of additions, the excess is deemed short-term capital gains.
      • If an entire block is transferred in a tax year, cost of acquisition is prescribed as opening WDV plus costs of acquisitions in the year, and resulting receipts are deemed short-term capital gains.
      • The Clause requires clear asset-wise accounting and documentary support for WDV, acquisition cost and transfer expenses to determine the operation of the deeming provisions.
      • Content of any additional sub-section (4) referred to in Clause 74(1) is Not stated in the document.
      • Examples, implementation mechanics, interaction with administrative guidance or transitional provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 74 Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax