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 92 "Income from other sources." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      1 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 92 Income from other sources.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out the head of income "Income from other sources" and itemises particular receipts chargeable under that head. It matters because it determines taxation of diverse receipts (dividends, winnings, gifts, insurance proceeds, etc.) and affects taxpayers across individuals, HUFs, business trusts and payers. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (F. - Income from other sources). The clause provides a non-exhaustive list of items chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" where such receipts are not chargeable under other specified heads (section 13(a)-(d) referenced). The provision contains definitions and exclusions to determine when particular receipts-dividends, gambling winnings, gifts, insurance proceeds, certain receipts by unit holders, compensation and interest-fall within this head. Specific definitions for terms such as "assessable", "card game and other game of any sort", "fair market value", "jewellery", "lottery", "property", "relative" and "unit linked insurance policy" are included. Any explanatory context beyond the clause text: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 92(1) establishes a residuary taxing head: any income not excluded from total income and not chargeable under the heads specified in section 13(a)-(d) is chargeable under "Income from other sources." Clause 92(2) supplies an illustrative (non-exhaustive) list including: dividends; winnings from lotteries, puzzles and games; employee contributions to welfare funds where not chargeable under business profits; Keyman insurance proceeds; interest on securities; hire income from plant/machinery/furniture (and, in specified circumstances, buildings); forfeited advances during failed negotiations to transfer capital assets; interest on compensation u/s 278(1); termination/modification payments from employment; specified sums distributed by a business trust computed via A-B-C; life insurance proceeds exceeding premium aggregate (subject to exclusions); and gifts / property received without or for inadequate consideration subject to thresholds and exceptions.

      Interpretation

      The clause signals legislative intent to: (a) consolidate miscellaneous incomes under a single head where no other head applies; (b) tax certain transfers and receipts with bright-line rules (e.g., gift thresholds, computation for business trust distributions); and (c) rely on cross-referenced definitions and valuation mechanisms (e.g., "stamp duty value", "fair market value", "specified banking or electronic modes" via other sections). The presence of detailed subclauses and defined terms indicates an intent to reduce ambiguity by specifying categories and valuation/payment mechanics. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: literal application of specified tests (thresholds, modes of payment, valuation dates) and deference to cross-references for technical definitions.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions include:

      • Life insurance receipts: unit linked policies and Keyman insurance receipts are excluded from clause (l) (treated separately); excess over aggregate premiums (not claimed as deduction) is taxable, "computed in such manner, as prescribed."
      • Gifts and property receipts: clause (2)(m) applies thresholds of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand rupees) for various types of gratuitous receipts and inadequate consideration; clause (3) lists exceptions where clause (2)(m) does not apply (gifts from relatives, on marriage, by will/inheritance, in contemplation of death, from local authorities, from registered non-profit organisations subject to specified limitations, certain non-transfer transactions u/s 70(1), trust-to-relative transactions and other prescribed classes/conditions).
      • Immovable property valuation for gifts: stamp duty value on the date of agreement applies if payment in prescribed modes occurred on or before the agreement date; disputed valuations may be referred to a Valuation Officer with sections 78(2) and 288 procedures applicable.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual receives cash of Rs. 75,000 as a gratuitous gift from a non-relative. Under clause 92(2)(m)(i) the entire Rs. 75,000 is taxable as "Income from other sources" (subject to exceptions in clause (3) - none apply here).

      • Example 2: An employee receives termination compensation. Clause 92(2)(j) brings "any compensation or other payment ... in connection with the termination of his employment" under this head, unless chargeable under another head (Not stated in the document whether any specific exemption applies).

      • Example 3: A unit holder receives a distribution from a business trust. Compute specified sum = A - B - C; if negative, treated as zero; the resulting amount is taxable under this clause subject to exceptions for items characterised under Schedule V or section 223(2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with multiple other provisions: section 13(a)-(d) (other heads), Schedule II (insurance tables), Schedule V, section 223(2) (tax treatment of certain distributions), section 278(1) (compensation interest), section 66(32) or equivalent (specified banking/online modes - Bill defines payment modes explicitly), section 70(1) (transactions not regarded as transfer), sections 78(2) and 288 (valuation procedures), section 355 (definition/conditions for non-profit organisations), and other undefined prescribed rules for valuation and computation. The clause therefore operates within a network of cross-references and delegated rules which determine practical tax consequences.

      Differences between Section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • The Act (Document 1) cross-references section numbers and Schedules differently from the Bill (Document 2). Examples: the Act in subsection (2)(d) refers to "Keyman insurance policy, as defined in Schedule II (Note 1)" (same wording), while the Bill uses "as defined Schedule II (Note 1)" (minor typographical omission). In subsection (5)(a) the Act defines "assessable" by reference to section 2(105); the Bill defines "assessable" by reference to section 78(3).
        • Practical impact: the Act's cross-reference to section 2(105) may change the meaning/coverage of "assessable" relative to the Bill; if the definitions in the cited sections differ, taxpayers and officers will apply different legal tests.
      • Payment modes wording for immovable property (subsection (4)(a)): The Bill specifies payment modes as "by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic clearing system through a bank account or through any prescribed electronic mode." The Act replaces that formulation with the more general "specified banking or online mode as defined in section 66(32)".
        • Practical impact: the Act consolidates and standardises permitted modes by reference to a statutory definition (section 66(32)), which may expand or restrict acceptable payment modes compared with the Bill's enumerated list and will centralise future changes in the definition rather than amending section 92 each time.
      • Formatting and drafting differences in subsection (3)(f)/(g) proviso cross-references: The Bill's proviso (3)(f) refers to section 355(g) and excepts when received by any person referred to in section 355(i). The Act refers to section 355(g) and excepts when received by any person referred to in section 355(h).
        • Practical impact: if sections 355(h) and 355(i) denote different classes, the scope of the exemption for registered non-profit organisations will change; one must consult the final Act's section 355 to determine which persons remain taxable.
      • Subsection (3)(g) list of transactions not regarded as transfer: The Bill and Act list differing paragraph letters within section 70(1). The Bill's list order and letters differ (includes items in a different sequence and with some letters swapped).
        • Practical impact: divergent lists could alter which transactions qualify for the exclusion from clause (2)(m) treatment, affecting transfer characterization for specific transaction types. The precise practical effect depends on alignment of those lettered subclauses in section 70 in the final Act.
      • Definitions - minor wording and drafting changes: Differences appear in subsection (5)(c) where the Bill states "means the value determined in such method as prescribed" (drafting error) while the Act states "means the value determined by such method as may be prescribed" (clearer). Subsection (5)(e) (definition of "lottery") and (5)(f) (property list) are substantively identical, but the Act includes "virtual digital asset" as item (x) as does the Bill.
        • Practical impact: most are drafting clarifications; the Act's clearer language reduces interpretive ambiguity.
      • Scope of 'relative' definition (subsection (5)(g)): The Bill's clause (5)(g)(i)(E) says "any lineal ascendant or descendant (maternal as well as paternal)" and then repeats "maternal as well as paternal" elsewhere; the Act lists lineal ascendant/descendant and explicitly repeats the maternal/paternal qualifier in some items.
        • Practical impact: largely drafting differences; the Act appears intended to clarify inclusions, which reduces disputes on familial coverage for gifts/exemptions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance hotspots: accurate identification of the head under which a receipt is taxable (e.g., business profits v. other sources v. salaries), documentation to prove payment modes for immovable property agreements, and adherence to thresholds for gifts/property to avoid unintended taxation.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: retain agreements, payment instrument records (account payee cheques/drafts, ECS or prescribed electronic mode confirmations), valuation reports or stamp duty valuation records, records of unit issue price and earlier taxed amounts (for business trust calculations), insurance policy premium history and proofs of deductions/non-deductions, and documents evidencing relationship (for "relative" exemptions) or inheritance/will.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 92 provides a broad residuary head to tax miscellaneous receipts not falling under other heads.
      • Specified bright-line rules apply to gifts, immovable property valuation, insurance proceeds and business trust distributions.
      • Multiple cross-references mean substantive effect depends on definitions and procedures in other sections and Schedules.
      • Taxpayers should preserve payment evidence and valuation records to meet prescribed modes and thresholds.
      • Several exceptions (relatives, marriage, inheritance, registered non-profits, specified transactions) narrow the scope of gift taxation.
      • Detailed computation rules (e.g., A-B-C for business trusts) require tracking historical distributions and earlier taxed amounts.
      • Where the Bill uses enumerated payment modes, future changes may be managed by prescribing additional modes or by cross-reference to a general definition in other sections.

      Full Text:

      Section 92 Income from other sources.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax