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 135 "Deduction in respect of certain donations for scientific research or rural development." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      3 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 135 Deduction in respect of certain donations for scientific research or rural development.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 135 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It proposes a deduction for certain donations made for scientific research or research in social sciences/statistics to approved research associations or educational institutions. It matters to donors (individuals and entities) considering donations to such bodies and to tax administration when verifying claims. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 135 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out a deduction in computing total income for amounts paid in the tax year to certain research associations, universities, colleges or other institutions approved u/s 45(3)(a)(i) or 45(3)(a)(ii) for use in scientific research or research in social science/statistics. The clause is placed under "Deductions in respect of certain payments." Definitions: Not stated in the document beyond the references to "research association", "University, college or other institution" and cross-reference to section 45(3)(a)(i)/(ii). No further definitional text or explanatory definitions are included in the clause itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 135(1) permits deduction in computing total income for sums paid in the tax year by an assessee to-(a) a research association with object of undertaking scientific research, or to a University/ college/ other institution approved for purposes of section 45(3)(a)(i) to be used for scientific research; and (b) a research association with object of research in social science or statistical research, or to a University/ college/ other institution approved for purposes of section 45(3)(a)(ii) to be used for such research. Clause 135(2) denies the deduction where (a) the assessee's gross total income includes income chargeable under "Profits and gains of business or profession"; or (b) the contribution is made in cash exceeding two thousand rupees. Clause 135(3) states that deduction shall not be denied merely because approval to the recipient institution has later been withdrawn. Clause 135(4) provides that the claim shall be allowed on the basis of information furnished by the payee to the prescribed income-tax authority or person authorised by such authority, subject to verification as per the Board's risk management strategy.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent: The text indicates a legislative intent to incentivise donations for scientific and social-science/statistical research by providing a tax deduction subject to prescribed eligibility and evidentiary requirements. The denial of the deduction where the donor has business/profession income suggests a policy decision to exclude commercial donors from this benefit, potentially to avoid conflation with business expenditure. The cash payment threshold reflects a preventative measure against untraceable cash donations. The verification provision places reliance on information supplied by the recipient institution and internal risk-based checks by the tax Board. The clause does not expressly state the quantum or ceiling of deduction; Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs: Clause 135(2) contains two explicit exceptions baring deduction where (a) donor's gross total income includes business/profession income; or (b) contribution in cash exceeds Rs 2,000. Clause 135(3) functions as a proviso protecting donors from retrospective denial of deduction solely because the recipient's approval was later withdrawn.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual (not carrying on business or profession) makes an electronic donation of Rs 10,000 in the tax year to an approved university for scientific research. Under Clause 135(1), this sum is deductible (subject to verification by the recipient and Board's risk checks). (This is a hypothetical consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: A firm with income under "Profits and gains of business or profession" pays Rs 5,000 to a research association. Clause 135(2)(a) would preclude deduction. (Hypothetical consistent with the text.)
      • Example 3: A donor pays Rs 3,000 in cash to an approved college; because cash contribution exceeds Rs 2,000, Clause 135(2)(b) disallows the deduction. (Hypothetical consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: The clause refers to section 45(3)(a)(i) and (ii) for approval of recipient institutions; further details about approval criteria or procedure are Not stated in the document. Clause 135(4) contemplates information furnished by the payee to the prescribed income-tax authority-procedural rules, forms or timelines for such filing are Not stated in the document. The Bill text does not include an express anti-double-claim provision present in the enacted Section 135 (Not stated in the document for the Bill), nor does it specify whether the deduction is subject to any overall ceiling or percentage limit (Not stated in the document).

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Presence of an additional subsection: The enacted Section 135 (Document 1) contains a subsection (5) which is absent from Clause 135 in the Bill (Document 2). Subsection (5) in the enacted text provides: "Where a deduction for any tax year has been claimed and allowed in respect of any payment of the nature referred to in this section, no deduction in respect of such payment shall be allowed under any other provision of this Act in any tax year."
        • Practical impact: This is a substantive anti-avoidance/anti-double-claim clause preventing taxpayers from claiming the same payment under any other deduction provision of the Act. Its absence in the Bill meant potential uncertainty or opportunity for double claims; its inclusion in the Act closes that gap and reduces risk of duplicate deductions and related disputes.
      • Minor drafting and reference differences: The Bill (Document 2) uses the phrasing "to a University, college or other institution approved for the purposes of section 45(3)(a)(i) to be used for scientific research" and mirrors similar phrasing for social science/statistical research. The Act (Document 1) reads essentially the same but with slightly different punctuation and the phrase "approved for the purposes of section 45(3)(a)(i) to be used for scientific research" without the additional "to" placements present in the Bill; subsection numbering references differ slightly in cross-references (Bill: "sub-section (1)(a) and (1)(b)"; Act: "sub-section (1)(a) and (b)").
        • Practical impact: These drafting variations are stylistic and do not appear to change substantive coverage or eligibility. They have negligible practical effect.
      • Withdrawal of approval wording: Slight variation in wording about withdrawal of approval. The Bill states: "...referred there in to whom the payment was made has been withdrawn." The Act states: "...referred therein has been withdrawn."
        • Practical impact: Minor grammatical difference-does not change the core rule that deduction shall not be denied merely because approval to the recipient was later withdrawn.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Donors must ensure that recipient institutions are approved under the referenced section, that donations are not in cash exceeding Rs 2,000, and that the donor's gross total income does not include business/profession income if intending to claim deduction. The verification mechanism under Clause 135(4) places significance on the accuracy and timely furnishing of information by recipients to the tax authority; donors may face disallowance if the recipient fails to furnish required information or if verification raises queries. The Bill does not set out documentation standards, prescribed forms or timelines-Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Donors should retain receipts and evidence of payment (bank records, electronic payment confirmations) and confirmation that the recipient institution was approved u/s 45(3)(a)(i)/(ii) at the time of payment. Evidence showing that payments were not in cash (for amounts above Rs 2,000) will be material. The Bill does not specify the form or content of payee information to be furnished-Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 135 proposes a specific deduction for donations to approved research associations and educational institutions for scientific and social-science/statistical research.
      • Deduction is disallowed where the donor has income under "Profits and gains of business or profession" or where cash donations exceed Rs 2,000.
      • Deduction cannot be denied solely because recipient's approval is later withdrawn.
      • Claimed deductions are to be allowed based on information furnished by the payee to the prescribed income-tax authority and subject to the Board's risk-based verification.
      • The Bill does not include an explicit prohibition on claiming the same payment under other provisions (this was introduced in the enacted Section but is Not stated in the Bill).
      • Procedural details (forms, timelines, approval criteria, ceilings or percentage limits) are Not stated in the document.
      • Donors should maintain contemporaneous, non-cash proof of payment and confirmation of recipient approval to avoid disallowance under the clause's conditions.

      Full Text:

      Section 135 Deduction in respect of certain donations for scientific research or rural development.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax