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 124 "Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      2 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 124 Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 124 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes deductions in respect of employer contributions (and certain employee contributions) to pension schemes notified by the Central Government. It affects individual taxpayers who are salaried or otherwise employed, employers who contribute to such pension schemes, and guardians making deposits for minors. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 124 is located within the Bill under the chapter heading "Deductions in respect of certain payments" and operates as a proposed tax deduction provision within the Income Tax framework. The text addresses employer contributions to pension schemes notified by the Central Government, individual contributions to the same schemes, deductions available in respect of deposits made for minors, and the tax treatment on receipt of accumulated amounts or annuity payments.

      Definitions or explicit explanatory notes in the clause: The clause defines "salary" for the purposes of the provision as including dearness allowance, if the employment terms so provide, but excluding all other allowances and perquisites. No other statutory definitions (e.g., "pension scheme", "nominee") are provided in the clause itself. For other terms and administrative definitions, Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 124 applies to an assessee who is an individual employed by an employer and to "any other assessee, being an individual" in relation to amounts paid or deposited by that person in his account under a pension scheme notified by the Central Government. The Clause allows:

      • A deduction of the employer's contribution to the employee's account under a notified pension scheme, up to a percentage of the employee's salary in the tax year - 14% where the employer is the Central or State Government; 10% where the employer is any other employer.
      • A substitution where an individual's total income is chargeable u/s 202(1): the 10% in the non-government employer case is treated as 14%.
      • A deduction for amounts paid or deposited by an individual into his own account under a notified pension scheme, subject to an overall cap of Rs.50,000.
      • An identical deduction for deposits made to a minor's account by the guardian, with an aggregate cap combined with the individual's Rs.50,000 limit.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The clause aims to incentivise pension savings by granting tax deductions for employer contributions (with different caps for government versus non-government employers) and to allow individuals and guardians to obtain tax relief for personal deposits into notified pension schemes. The 14%/10% split suggests a policy recognition of government employers' higher contribution norms. The clause also employs deeming provisions to tax withdrawals or annuity receipts where tax benefits were earlier claimed. The limitation on deductions overlapping with section 123 is an anti-double-dip measure.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly provided in the Clause include:

      • Where total income is chargeable u/s 202(1), the 10% ceiling for non-government employers is treated as 14% (sub-section (2)).
      • Cap of Rs.50,000 applies to individual payments/deposits in a tax year (sub-section (3)).
      • Aggregate cap for guardian deposits to a minor is combined with the individual cap (sub-section (4)).
      • No deduction under sub-section (3) where the same amount already qualified for deduction u/s 123 (sub-section (5)).
      • Deeming of amounts received on closure, opting out, or as annuity as taxable income in the year of receipt (sub-section (6)); exceptions for amounts received by nominees/guardians on death are specified (sub-sections (7)-(8)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-government employer contributes an amount equal to 9% of an employee's salary to a notified pension scheme in a tax year - the employee may claim deduction for the full employer contribution because it does not exceed the 10% ceiling.
      • Example 2: An individual deposits Rs.60,000 into his account under a notified pension scheme during the tax year - deduction allowable is capped at Rs.50,000; the excess Rs.10,000 is not deductible under this clause.
      • Example 3: A guardian deposits Rs.30,000 into a minor's notified pension account, and the guardian also deposits Rs.25,000 into his own account in the same year - aggregate deduction limited to Rs.50,000, so Rs.5,000 of the combined deposits would not be deductible.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions explicitly mentioned: sub-section (5) cross-references section 123 to prevent overlapping deductions. No other specific Rules, Notifications or Circulars are referenced in the Clause. For links to other legislative or administrative instruments beyond section 123, Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 124 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Parent/guardian terminology in sub-section (4):

        Clause 124 (Bill): refers to the assessee "being the guardian of such minor".

        Section 124 (Act): refers to the assessee "being the parent or guardian of such minor".

        Practical impact: Act explicitly includes parent (in addition to guardian) as a person permitted to deposit for minor and claim deduction; that widens the class of persons who can claim aggregate deduction for deposits to a minor.

      • Cross-reference to section 123 in sub-section (5):

        Clause 124 (Bill): "No deduction under sub-section (3) shall be allowed in respect of the amount on which a deduction has been claimed and allowed u/s 123."

        Section 124 (Act): sub-section (5) states "No deduction under sub-section (3) and (4) shall be allowed in respect of the amount on which a deduction has been claimed and allowed u/s 123." - Act extends bar to both sub-sections (3) and (4).

        Practical impact: Act prevents double claiming for contributions made for a minor where guardian/parent seeks deduction under sub-section (4); Bill only barred sub-section (3). This closes an avenue for duplicate deductions and clarifies anti-double-claim rule.

      • Deeming and taxation on receipt (sub-sections (6)-(8)):

        Both texts contain similar deeming provisions treating amounts received on closure/opt-out or as annuity as income when received, and carve-outs where nominee/guardian receiving on death is not taxed. The Act contains additional sub-sections (11) and (12) and references to "Unified Pension Scheme" and "pool corpus"/"individual corpus".

        Practical impact: The Act adds explicit treatment for Unified Pension Scheme subscribers and transfers to pool corpus, clarifying taxability on superannuation/voluntary retirement and exclusions when amounts are transferred to pool corpus; the Bill lacks these specifics. This is a substantive expansion of coverage in the Act to specific schemes and modes of transfer.

      • Definition/term clarification (sub-section (13)):

        Section 124 (Act) adds clause (13) defining "pool corpus" and "individual corpus" by reference to a specific Department of Financial Services Notification (F. No. FX-1/3/2024-PR dated 24 January 2025), and clarifies the meaning of "salary". Clause 124 (Bill) includes the "salary" definition but does not include clause (13) or the notification cross-reference.

        Practical impact: Act ties certain terms to an external notification, creating a linkage to administrative definitions and making the provision more scheme-specific; Bill is more generic. This affects interpretive certainty and reliance on administrative instruments.

      • Nominee receipt on death (sub-sections (7) & (8)):

        Both texts contain similar non-taxation of nominee/guardian receipt on death, but the Act includes slightly different phrasing in (8) referencing parent/guardian/nominee of a minor; the Bill only references "guardian or nominee".

        Practical impact: Act broadens the protective non-taxation language to explicitly include parent in addition to guardian/nominee where minor dies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure employer contribution amounts are within the prescribed percentage ceilings (14% for government employers; 10% for others) and that personal deposits do not exceed the Rs.50,000 cap. Guardians should track aggregate deductions between their own deposits and deposits for minors to avoid exceeding the Rs.50,000 limit. Where amounts have already been claimed u/s 123, taxpayers must not claim a duplicate deduction under sub-section (3).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Employers and employees should maintain contemporaneous records evidencing employer contributions (amount, date, scheme notified by Central Government), terms of employment evidencing dearness allowance inclusion in "salary", receipts for personal and guardian deposits into notified pension scheme accounts, and any documentation supporting the use of withdrawn amounts to purchase an annuity in the same tax year (to trigger non-deeming under sub-section (9)).

      Key Takeaways

      • Employer contributions to Central Government-notified pension schemes are deductible in computing an employee's total income up to specified percentage ceilings of salary (14% for government employers; 10% for others).
      • Individuals may claim a deduction up to Rs.50,000 for personal deposits into notified pension scheme accounts; the same cap applies on aggregate when the guardian deposits for a minor.
      • Amounts on which deductions were previously allowed become taxable on receipt (on closure, opting out, or as annuity) in the year of receipt; limited exceptions apply on death.
      • Duplicate deduction is barred where the same amount has been claimed u/s 123.
      • "Salary" is defined to include dearness allowance if terms of employment so provide; other allowances and perquisites are excluded.
      • Where total income is chargeable u/s 202(1), the non-government employer ceiling is treated as 14% rather than 10%.
      • Practical compliance requires careful record-keeping of contributions, deposit receipts, and evidence of annuity purchase to establish tax treatment on receipt of funds.

      Full Text:

      Section 124 Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax