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 93 "Deduction" 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 93 Deductions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - a statutory provision setting out permitted deductions in computing income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources." It matters because it prescribes the allowable deductions and limitations that affect taxable income for a broad class of receipts (dividends, interest, pensions, other income). Affects taxpayers receiving such incomes and tax administrators who apply the provision. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - dealing with computation of taxable income under the head "Income from other sources." Context: Specifies permissible deductions and limitations when computing taxable income under that head. Coverage: Enumerates deductions for (a) amounts paid as commission/remuneration for realising dividends or interest on securities; (b) particular incomes referenced in section 92(2)(c) with reference to section 29(1)(e); (c) incomes referenced in section 92(2)(f) and (g) with reference to sections 28(1)(a),(b),(d), 28(2) and 33; (d) family pension with specified amounts limited by whether tax is computed u/s 202(1); (e) other revenue expenditures wholly and exclusively laid out for making or earning the income; (f) 50% deduction for income referred to in section 92(2)(i) with no other deduction allowed; and sub-section (2) addressing non-allowance or limitation of deduction for certain dividend incomes and certain mutual fund/unit incomes. Definitions/explanations provided in the text: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause prescribes that income under "Income from other sources" is computed after making enumerated deductions. The deduction categories are as follows:

      • Clause (a): For dividends (excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f)) or interest on securities - any reasonable sum paid as commission or remuneration to a banker or any other person for the purpose of realising such dividend or interest on behalf of the assessee.
      • Clause (b): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(c) - an amount as per section 29(1)(e), "so far as may be."
      • Clause (c): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(f) and (g) - an amount as per section 28(1)(a), (b), (d), section 33, and subject to the provisions of section 28(2), "so far as may be."
      • Clause (d): For family pension (defined in the text parenthetically as "a regular monthly amount payable by the employer to a family member of an employee upon the death of such employee") - deductible amounts are (i) one-third of such income or Rs. 25,000, whichever is less, where income-tax is computed u/s 202(1); (ii) one-third of such income or Rs. 15,000, whichever is less, in any other case.
      • Clause (e): Any other expenditure (not capital) laid out wholly and exclusively for making or earning such income.
      • Clause (f): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(i) - deduction equal to 50% of such income and no other deduction shall be allowed under this section.
      • Sub-section (2)(a): For dividend income of the nature in section 2(40)(f), no deduction allowed.
      • Sub-section (2)(b): For other dividend income or income from specified mutual fund units or units of a specified company under the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 - only deduction allowed is interest expense limited to 20% of such income for the tax year (and such income is included in total income without deduction under this section prior to applying that limit).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a classificatory approach: it first lists categories of income and then prescribes related deductible expenses or fixed deduction amounts. The repeated phrase "so far as may be" in clauses (b) and (c) indicates a limiting or permissive approach to applying cross-referenced provisions (sections 29(1)(e), 28 and 33), implying that only those amounts that are appropriate and allowable under the referenced provisions are to be considered. The text indicates a legislative intent to align the deduction regime for incomes under this head with relevant provisions governing similar expenses in other heads (through cross-references), and to prescribe specific caps or exclusions (e.g., family pension numeric caps, 50% cap for certain incomes, prohibition of deductions for specified dividends).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No general provisos beyond the numerical or categorical limits are provided in the clause. Specific carve-outs include:

      • Sub-section (2)(a): Complete prohibition of deductions for dividend income referred to in section 2(40)(f).
      • Sub-section (2)(b): Restriction that for certain dividends/units only interest expense is deductible and that deduction is limited to 20% of such income for the tax year.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Commission on dividend realisation: An assessee pays a banker a reasonable commission to realise dividend from listed securities (not covered by section 2(40)(f)). That reasonable commission is deductible under clause (a). (No numerical figures stated in the text; the allowance depends on reasonableness.)
      • Example 2 - Family pension: A family pensioner receives Rs. 30,000 in the year and tax is not computed u/s 202(1). The allowable deduction under clause (d)(ii) is one-third of Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 10,000, subject to the cap of Rs. 15,000; therefore deduction is Rs. 10,000. (This example uses the numerical caps provided in the text.)
      • Example 3 - 50% deduction: An assessee receives income of the nature in section 92(2)(i) amounting to Rs. 100,000. Under clause (f) deduction allowed equals 50% = Rs. 50,000, and no other deduction under this section is permitted against that income.

      Interplay

      Clause 93 cross-references several sections: 2(40)(f), 92(2)(c),(f),(g),(i), 28(1),(2), 29(1)(e), 33 and references Schedule entries (in the enacted text). The Old Version directs application of the substantive provisions of those sections for determining allowable deductions "so far as may be." It therefore requires contemporaneous interpretation with the referenced provisions to determine the nature and scope of allowances. Specific notifications, rules, or circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 93 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Addition of specific exemptions: The enacted Section 93 contains two additional sub-clauses (g) and (h) that are absent in the Old Version (Clause 93). Sub-clause (g) provides that "for income in the nature of commutation of pension received from a fund as specified in Schedule VII (Table: Sl. No. 3), the entire amount" is deductible. Sub-clause (h) provides that "for income in the nature of gratuity as referred in section 19(2)(g), received on the death of the employee, the entire amount" is deductible.
        • Practical impact: These additions create express full deductions (i.e., full exemption) for commuted pension from a specified fund and for gratuity received on death, thereby expanding the list of deductible/exempt receipts under the head "Income from other sources" compared to the Bill's old text.
      • Clarification of clause (a) punctuation/scope: In the enacted Section 93 clause (a) the bracketed exclusion is placed as "for dividends [excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f)] or interest on securities, any reasonable sum..." In the Old Version clause (a) the bracket appears to run "for dividends [excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f) or interest on securities, any reasonable sum..." - which creates a punctuation/parenthetical ambiguity.
        • Practical impact: The enacted text more clearly excludes only the dividends referred to in section 2(40)(f) from the deduction-qualifying income, while the Old Version's punctuation could be read ambiguously to exclude "interest on securities" from the bracketed exclusion or to misplace the scope of exclusion. The enacted version therefore reduces interpretive uncertainty about the scope of clause (a).
      • Substantive parity otherwise: Apart from the two new sub-clauses and the bracket punctuation, the substantive provisions (clauses (b)-(f) and sub-section (2) clauses (a) and (b)) remain materially the same between the two texts.
        • Practical impact: Taxpayers and administrators can expect the same treatment under those clauses except where the new sub-clauses confer additional deductions/exemptions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify the categorical nature of income (whether it falls under the listed sub-paragraphs or under exclusions such as section 2(40)(f)) to determine available deductions. Misclassification may lead to disallowance (for instance, claiming a commission deduction against dividends that are of the nature in section 2(40)(f)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision requires demonstration of "reasonable" commissions/remuneration (clause (a)) and of expenditure "wholly and exclusively" laid out (clause (e)). Therefore, contemporaneous invoices, agreements with bankers/agents, proofs of payment, and documentation justifying reasonableness should be maintained. For limited deductions (e.g., interest limited to 20% under sub-section (2)(b), or the 50% rule under clause (f)), records to show computation and linkage to the specific income item should be kept.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 93 (Old Version) lists specified deductions for computing income under "Income from other sources," including commissions for realising dividends/interest, specified cross-referenced expenses, family pension caps, and a 50% rule for certain incomes.
      • Cross-references to other sections (28, 29, 33, 92(2) items) mean practical application depends on interpreting those provisions in tandem; the Clause uses "so far as may be" to limit application.
      • Certain dividend incomes (section 2(40)(f)) are expressly denied deductions; other dividend-like incomes permit only interest expense up to 20%.
      • Family pension deduction is numerically capped and varies depending on whether tax is computed u/s 202(1).
      • Clause (f) prescribes a single 50% deduction for incomes of a specified nature, expressly prohibiting other deductions under this section for those incomes.
      • Documentation evidencing reasonableness and that expenditures were wholly and exclusively for earning the income will be central to sustaining claims.
      • Legislative intent beyond the text, effective date, transitional provisions, and administrative guidance are not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 93 Deductions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax