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
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❯❯
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
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    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