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 85 "Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      30 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) provides an exemption mechanism where long-term capital gains from transfer of land or building are not charged if reinvested, within six months, into specified long-term bonds. It affects taxpayers holding capital gains from immovable property and the tax department's assessment of deferred gains. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 85 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The provision addresses treatment of long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of land or building (original asset) when reinvested into certain long-term bonds (new asset). Definitions/explanations: Clause 85(6) defines "new asset" as any bond redeemable after five years and as notified by the Central Government for the purposes of this section with such conditions (including a condition for providing a limit on the amount of investment by an assessee in such bond). No other statutory cross-references or definitional elaborations are included in the text. Any further definitions (for example, of "long-term capital gains" or "transfer") are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 85 applies when: (a) an assessee has long-term capital gains from transfer of land or building (original asset); and (b) within six months of that transfer, the assessee invests whole or part of those capital gains in a "new asset" (long-term bond as defined). The clause prescribes two outcomes: (i) if capital gains exceed the investment in the new asset, the excess is charged u/s 67; (ii) if capital gains are equal to or less than the investment, the whole gain shall not be charged u/s 67. Clause 85(2) caps the amount of investment eligible for this treatment at fifty lakh rupees: this cap applies either during any tax year or in the year of transfer and the subsequent tax year. Clause 85(3) provides anti-avoidance: if the new asset is transferred or converted into money within five years, the previously exempted capital gains are deemed to be income chargeable as long-term capital gains in the tax year of that transfer or conversion. Clause 85(4) treats any loan or advance taken on security of the new asset as "regarded as transfer" of the new asset on the date of the loan/advance. Clause 85(5) disallows deduction u/s 123 for any tax year for investments taken into account under sub-section (1). Clause 85(6) defines "new asset" as described above.

      Interpretation

      The textual intent is to provide a limited roll-over-like relief (deferment of tax) for long-term capital gains from immovable property where the gains are reinvested into specified long-term bonds. The six-month reinvestment window, five-year holding requirement for the bond, and a monetary cap (Rs. 50 lakh) indicate a legislative balance between incentivising certain public/sector bonds and preventing indefinite tax avoidance. The statutory language indicates a legislative policy to treat the reinvestment as a basis for not charging gains immediately, subject to temporal and monetary safeguards. No explicit legislative history or purposive statement beyond the clause text is provided. Not stated in the document: any legislative note, explanatory memorandum, or policy rationale beyond the text.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 85 contains built-in conditions and limits rather than separate provisos: the six-month investment period, the Rs. 50 lakh ceiling (applying as per sub-section (2)), and the five-year retention rule with deeming consequences on breach. There is also a prohibition on claiming deduction u/s 123 for amounts invested under sub-section (1). No other carve-outs, exemptions for particular categories of taxpayers, or transitional provisions are contained in the provision. Not stated in the document: treatment where part of the gains are reinvested beyond Rs. 50 lakh, or where reinvestment occurs after six months but before filing-only the text is available.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee realises long-term capital gain of Rs. 60,00,000 on sale of land. Within six months, the assessee invests Rs. 50,00,000 (all from the gain) in notified bonds qualifying as "new asset". Under Clause 85(1)(i) Rs. 10,00,000 (the excess) is charged u/s 67; Rs. 50,00,000 is not charged u/s 67 (subject to later events such as transfer within five years).
      • Example 2: An assessee realises long-term capital gain of Rs. 40,00,000 and within six months invests the whole amount in qualifying bonds. Under Clause 85(1)(ii), the entire gain of Rs. 40,00,000 is not charged u/s 67, provided the bonds are retained for five years.

      Interplay

      The provision references section 67 (for charging gains) and section 123 (for denial of deduction) but does not elaborate how computations under those sections are to be adjusted. No Rules, Notifications or Circulars are incorporated into the clause beyond the delegation to the Central Government to notify bonds (Clause 85(6)). Not stated in the document: specific interactions with other provisions such as indexation rules, computation of cost of acquisition for the reinvested asset, or the income-tax return disclosure requirements. The clause contemplates notifications with "such conditions" - potential interplay will depend on subsequent notifications issued under that power.

      Differences between Section 85 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 85 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and practical impact

      • Definition / Scope of "new asset"/"long-term specified asset":
        • Bill (Old Version) - Clause 85(6): defines "new asset" broadly as "any bond, redeemable after five years and as notified by the Central Government for the purposes of this section with such conditions (including a condition for providing a limit on the amount of investment by an assessee in such bond)."
        • Act - Section 85(6): uses the term "long-term specified asset" and expressly lists bonds issued by National Highways Authority of India or Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (and any other bond notified), redeemable after five years and issued on or after 1 April 2018.
        • Practical impact: The Act is more prescriptive - it specifies eligible issuers and a temporal cutoff (on or after 1 April 2018). The Bill's language is broader and delegates more to notification, including condition-setting. Under the Act, certain bonds are expressly eligible; under the Bill, eligibility depends more on future notifications and imposed conditions, potentially creating greater administrative discretion and uncertainty for taxpayers until notifications are issued.
      • Treatment of loans/advances secured by the new asset:
        • Bill - Clause 85(4): "Any loan or advance taken on the security of the new asset shall be regarded as transfer of the new asset on the date of such loan or advance."
        • Act - Section 85(4): "Any loan or advance taken on the security of the new asset shall be deemed to have converted the new asset into money on the date of such loan or advance."
        • Practical impact: The Bill treats a secured loan/advance as a "regarded" transfer (language typically used to attribute a transfer-like consequence), while the Act treats it as a deemed conversion into money. Both create similar fiscal consequences (loss of exemption), but the Act's "deemed conversion into money" language may better align with triggering chargeability as capital gains and with consequential computations; the Bill's phrasing could raise interpretive questions about whether other modes of transfer treatment apply.
      • Terminology and cross-references:
        • Bill and Act: Both refer to charging u/s 67 and denial of deduction u/s 123 when investment is claimed. The Act's text substitutes "long-term specified asset" for the Bill's "new asset" and adds issuer examples and the 2018 date.
        • Practical impact: Terminological differences are modest but the Act's specificity narrows literal scope and clarifies temporal applicability, reducing some uncertainty left by the Bill.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure reinvestment of gains occurs within six months and does not exceed Rs. 50 lakh for the relevant period(s). Failure to comply (late investment, over-investment, or early transfer/encumbrance) triggers chargeability u/s 67 or deeming of previously exempted gains. The clause's treatment of loans/advances secured by the bond as regarded/treated as transfer creates an anti-abuse rule that requires caution before pledging bonds secured against borrowing.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should retain dated proof of sale (showing date of transfer), bank records showing that reinvestment occurred within six months, details of the notified bond (notification reference once issued), and documentation demonstrating retention of the bond for five years. Proof of any loans/advances secured on the bond and the dates of such transactions should be preserved, given the deeming consequence. Not stated in the document: specific forms or returns for claiming the benefit.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 85 creates a limited roll-over relief for long-term capital gains from land/building reinvested in notified long-term bonds within six months.
      • The relief is capped at Rs. 50 lakh as to amount permitted in the tax year or across the year of transfer and the subsequent year.
      • Deemed chargeability applies if the bond is transferred, converted into money, or (per Clause 85(4)) if a loan/advance is taken on the security of the bond within five years.
      • Investment qualifying as "new asset" depends on Central Government notification; the clause contemplates conditions to be imposed by notification, creating dependency on subordinate legislation.
      • Deduction u/s 123 is specifically disallowed for investments taken into account under sub-section (1).
      • Several practical details (return procedure, computational adjustments, legislative intent beyond the text) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 85 Capital gains not to be charged on investment in certain bonds.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax