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 106 "Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc." 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 106 Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document for detailed commentary is Clause 106 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc." It proposes that amounts borrowed or repaid by means other than an account payee cheque shall be treated as the borrower's or repayer's income for the tax year in which the transaction occurs. The provision matters to taxpayers using negotiable instruments or hundis for lending/repayment, to tax authorities assessing income, and to regulated intermediaries. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 106 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) is located in the aggregation of income provisions (Bills classified under "AGGREGATION OF INCOME"). The clause addresses the treatment of amounts borrowed or repaid via particular instruments-negotiable instruments and hundis-when those transactions are effected otherwise than by an account payee cheque, or through modes that the Board may later specify. The text expressly includes interest ("including interest thereof") as part of the amount covered. Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the textual references to "negotiable instrument", "hundi", and "account payee cheque." The Bill contains an explanatory sentence describing the policy that amounts borrowed on a hundi or similar instruments when not passed through an account payee cheque will be deemed income of the borrower/repayer.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause comprises two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provides: where any amount (including interest thereof) is borrowed or repaid through a negotiable instrument or a hundi, other than an account payee cheque, or through any mode as specified by the Board, the amount so borrowed or repaid shall be deemed to be the income of the person borrowing or repaying, as the case may be, for the tax year in which the amount was borrowed or repaid. Sub-section (2) provides that where such amount has been deemed to be the income of any person under sub-section (1), that person shall not be liable to be assessed again in respect of such amount under that sub-section on repayment of such amount.

      Interpretation

      The provision operates as a deeming rule: it converts a financing transaction (borrowing or repayment) effected by certain instruments or modes into taxable income in the year of borrowing/repayment. The inclusion of interest within the deeming indicates the legislature's intent to treat not only principal but also interest components as taxable when transacted by the specified modes. The clause uses mandatory language ("shall be deemed to be the income"), leaving limited discretion at assessment stage to disregard the deeming when the statutory conditions are satisfied. The provision also empowers the Board to specify alternative modes that will attract the deeming rule, implying subordinate legislation or administrative specification may expand the list of covered modes. Legislative intent (as articulated in the explanatory line in the Bill): to capture off-account or informal credit/repayment channels (notably hundis) wherein funds pass outside bank account cheques, thereby preventing tax avoidance or concealment through non-account-payee channels.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause carves out transactions conducted through an "account payee cheque" from the deeming rule. No other statutory exceptions, thresholds, or provisos are provided in the text. The Board's power to specify modes creates a prospective exception/extension mechanism but no criteria for specification are provided in the clause. Any further conditionality, exemptions, or procedural safeguards: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A lends Rs. X to B and receives repayment by a hundi in the same tax year; under Clause 106(1) the amount repaid (including interest) is deemed B's income in that tax year. The Bill's text captures this scenario. (Concrete numeric examples are not provided in the Bill.)

      • Example 2: C borrows money via a negotiable instrument other than an account payee cheque; the borrowed amount is deemed C's income in the year of borrowing. (No further factual details or exceptions are set out in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      The clause references the Board's power to specify additional modes that will trigger the deeming, implying interaction with delegated instruments (notifications/gazette orders) to expand or clarify covered modes. References to other statutory provisions, rules, circulars, or case law are Not stated in the document. Any cross-references to sections dealing with income characterization, disclosure, or penalties are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Section 106 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 106 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Wording and scope: The statutory Section 106 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 106 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) are substantially similar in substance. Both deem amounts borrowed or repaid through a negotiable instrument or a hundi, other than an account payee cheque (or through any mode specified by the Board), to be the income of the person borrowing or repaying in the year of borrowing/repayment. The Act text explicitly adds the phrase "(including interest thereof)" and in subsection (1) the Act repeats "(including interest paid on the borrowed amount)" when describing the income element; the Bill's text includes "(including interest thereof)" only once and does not reiterate the interest phrase in the second clause.
        • Practical impact: The Act's duplication clarifies that interest component is included both when borrowed and when repaid; the Bill's single insertion conveys the same substantive inclusion but with slightly less repetition. There is no meaningful change in tax effect.
      • Terminology: The Bill uses "a hundi" and speaks of "account payee cheque drawn on a bank" in the explanatory sentence appended to Clause 106. The Act uses "on a hundi" and "an account payee cheque" and adds the alternative phrase "or through any mode as specified by the Board in this behalf."
        • Practical impact: The Act's phrasing and the Board-specifiable mode language are identical in both versions; differences are minor drafting variations and do not alter coverage.
      • Explanatory note: The Bill (old version) contains an appended explanatory sentence describing the clause's intent (that amounts borrowed on a hundi or other instruments not through an account payee cheque shall be deemed income). The Act version does not include that appended sentence in the excerpt provided.
        • Practical impact: The explanatory sentence in the Bill aids legislative intent and clarifies policy aim; its absence in the Act text excerpt may reflect removal of the marginal note or relegation to legislative history, but not a substantive change in liability.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers who borrow or repay funds through hundis or non-account-payee negotiable instruments face a risk of those amounts being treated as income in the tax year of transaction. This creates potential timing differences and immediate taxable consequences where such instruments are used. Brokers, moneylenders, and persons dealing in hundis must assess reporting and tax consequences when handling such instruments. The Board's power to specify additional modes may broaden the reach administratively, increasing compliance risk.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: While the clause does not prescribe records, the deeming effect highlights the practical need for documentary evidence to show lawful financing arrangements and to establish whether the transaction was in fact effected by an account payee cheque or by a covered instrument/mode. Taxpayers would logically need to retain originals of negotiable instruments, hundis, bank records, and contemporaneous loan documentation to substantiate the nature of transactions-however prescription of specific records or timelines: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 106 is a deeming provision that treats amounts borrowed or repaid through specified non-account-payee modes (negotiable instruments, hundis, and Board-specified modes) as income in the year of borrowing or repayment.
      • The provision expressly includes interest within the amount to be deemed income.
      • Transactions effected by an account payee cheque are explicitly excluded from the deeming rule.
      • Sub-section (2) prevents double taxation: once deemed income on borrowing/repayment, the same amount shall not be assessed again on repayment under the same provision.
      • The provision empowers the Board to identify additional modes that will attract the deeming treatment, signalling scope for administrative expansion.
      • The Bill contains an explanatory sentence clarifying the policy objective to capture off-bank-account instruments; the clause itself does not set out procedural protections or thresholds.
      • Practical effect centers on timing and characterization of amounts where informal or non-account-payee payment channels are used; taxpayers should maintain transaction documentation (the clause itself does not specify records required).

      Full Text:

      Section 106 Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax