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 153 "Deduction for interest on deposits." 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 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out deductions for interest on deposits for specified categories of assessees (individuals - both non-senior and senior citizens - and Hindu undivided families). It prescribes monetary ceilings and identifies eligible deposit institutions. The provision affects taxpayers (individuals and HUFs) who receive interest on deposits with banks, cooperative banks and Post Offices. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 153 sits within the chapter heading "Deductions in respect of other incomes." It addresses deduction from gross total income where that income includes interest on deposits. The clause identifies assessees eligible for deduction: (a) individuals not being senior citizens, (b) individuals being senior citizens, and (c) Hindu undivided families. Eligible deposit takers are defined by reference to existing regulatory statutes - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for banking companies), cooperative societies engaged in banking (including cooperative land mortgage/development banks), and Post Offices as defined in section 2(k) of the Post Office Act, 2023. The clause contains an internal definition of "time deposits."

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 153(1) establishes that an assessee in the enumerated categories shall be allowed a deduction from gross total income, subject to sub-section (2), where it includes income by way of interest on deposits with specified institutions (banking companies under the Banking Regulation Act, cooperative societies carrying on banking, or Post Offices as defined). Clause 153(2) prescribes the quantum and account-type limitations for the deduction for a tax year:

      • (a) For non-senior individuals and HUFs: whole interest up to a maximum of ten thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, excluding time deposits.
      • (b) For senior citizens: whole interest up to a maximum of fifty thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, including time deposits.

      Clause 153(3) states that where the income referred to in "this section" is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by or on behalf of a firm, association of persons or body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed under the section in respect of such income in computing the total income of any partner/member/individual of such entity. Clause 153(4) defines "time deposits" as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.

      Interpretation

      The text distinguishes assessees by age (senior citizen vs non-senior) and by entity type (individual/HUF). The deduction is account-specific: savings accounts are central to the non-senior/HUF benefit; the senior citizen provision explicitly refers to savings accounts but also states "including time deposits." This combination may require interpretive attention, as "savings account" and "time deposits" are traditionally distinct categories. The legislature's inclusion of "time deposits" within the senior citizen sub-clause signals an intent to extend benefit to interest from fixed-term deposits for senior citizens, but restricting the words "savings account" to both categories may create an internal tension requiring purposive construction. The restriction in sub-section (3) prevents pass-through of the concession to partners/members where the deposit is held by or on behalf of a partnership/AOP/BOI.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No further provisos or carve-outs are provided beyond the account-type limitations, monetary ceilings and the bar on deduction where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs and the definition of time deposits. Specific exceptions for other classes of entities (e.g., companies, trusts) are not provided. Not stated in the document: any specific anti-avoidance measures, procedural compliance, or certificate/documentation requirements for claiming the deduction.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Non-senior individual: A non-senior individual receives interest of Rs. 12,000 in a tax year from a savings account (excluding time deposits). Under Clause 153(2)(a), deduction allowed is the whole of interest up to Rs. 10,000; thus Rs. 10,000 deductible, and Rs. 2,000 remains taxable. (This example is a direct application of the numeric ceiling stated.)
      • Example 2 - Senior citizen: A senior citizen receives Rs. 45,000 interest in the tax year from a five-year fixed deposit held with a bank. Clause 153(2)(b) permits deduction of whole interest up to Rs. 50,000 on deposits in a savings account, "including time deposits." Applying the text, the senior citizen may claim deduction up to Rs. 45,000 (subject to interpretation of "savings account" phrase). The full interest would be deductible, being below the Rs. 50,000 ceiling. (This example follows the provision as worded.)
      • Example 3 - Partner of firm: A partner receives share of interest income from a savings account held by the firm. Clause 153(3) bars deduction in computing the partner's total income in respect of such income. (Direct textual application.)

      Interplay

      The clause references the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Post Office Act, 2023 for institutional definitions. Not stated in the document: any interaction with other specific sections of the Income-tax Code concerning income classification (e.g., treatment of interest as "income from other sources") or rules governing computation of gross total income. Not stated in the document: whether the clause displaces general provisions on deduction elsewhere in the Code or specific filing/conduct requirements in rules or notifications.

      Differences between Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Scope of deductible interest for senior citizens (sub-section (2)(b)): The Act version permits deduction for senior citizens of "the whole of the interest up to a maximum amount of Rs. 50,000 on deposits in any account, including time deposits." The Bill (Old Version) limits the wording to "deposits in a savings account, including time deposits."
        • Practical impact: The Act version is broader-allows senior citizens to claim the deduction on interest from any kind of deposit account (savings or other accounts), whereas the Bill's older text confines the benefit to savings accounts (albeit it still says "including time deposits," creating a textual ambiguity). This change affects the tax benefit available to senior citizens who hold interest-bearing deposits in non-savings accounts (e.g., term accounts held in non-savings category) - under the Act version they clearly receive relief; under the Bill version they may be excluded.
      • Treatment of non-senior individuals and HUFs (sub-section (2)(a)): Both versions provide that individuals (non-senior) and HUFs may claim deduction up to Rs. 10,000 on interest on deposits in a savings account excluding time deposits. Wording differs only in numeric styling ("Rs. 10000" vs. "ten thousand rupees") and punctuation; substantive position appears consistent.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; same monetary ceiling and exclusion of time deposits.
      • Structure and placement of prohibitions when deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs (sub-sections (3) and (4)): The Act separates prohibitions: (3) bars deduction for the non-senior/HUF category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(a) derives from deposits in a savings account held by/for a firm/AOP/BOI; (4) separately bars deduction for the senior citizen category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(b) derives from deposits held by/for such entities. The Bill consolidates the restriction into a single sub-section (3) referring to "where the income referred to in this section is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by, or on behalf of, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed ... in computing the total income of any partner ... member ... or individual ..."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's single provision speaks only of "savings account" deposits and references "this section" generally; it could be interpreted as not addressing the situation where the senior-citizen deduction applies to non-savings accounts (if the Bill's (2)(b) were read to permit non-savings accounts). The Act's split provisions are clearer in mapping the prohibition to each beneficiary category. The Act thus reduces interpretive uncertainty about applicability of the bar for senior citizens when the Act allows deduction on "any account."
      • Definition/placement of "time deposits": The Bill defines "time deposits" in its sub-section (4): "In this section, 'time deposits' means the deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods." The Act places that definition as sub-section (5) with essentially identical wording.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; placement/numbering differs but definition unchanged.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify whether interest originates from an eligible institution and whether the deposit is a "savings account" or a "time deposit" (as defined). The clause differentiates benefits by assessees (non-senior vs senior), so accurate taxpayer classification (seniority) is essential. The textual overlap ("savings account, including time deposits" for senior citizens) could give rise to disputes concerning eligibility of particular deposit types; taxpayers and practitioners should be prepared to justify characterization of accounts. The prohibition in sub-section (3) requires attention where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs to prevent incorrect claims by partners/members.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Retain bank/postal account statements, deposit receipts, account opening documents identifying account type, and evidence of senior citizenship status (if claiming the senior citizen ceiling). Where deposit is held on behalf of a firm/AOP/BOI, retain documentation demonstrating beneficial ownership/arrangement to establish whether the bar in sub-section (3) applies. Not stated in the document: specific documentary threshold or certificate formats.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause targets individuals (non-senior and senior) and HUFs with specified ceilings for deduction on interest from deposits.
      • Non-senior individuals and HUFs: deduction capped at Rs. 10,000 on interest from savings accounts (excluding time deposits).
      • Senior citizens: deduction capped at Rs. 50,000 and the text purports to include time deposits; the phraseology creates potential interpretive ambiguity concerning account types.
      • Deposits held by or on behalf of firms/AOPs/BOIs are expressly excluded from allowing the deduction to partners/members/individuals under this section.
      • "Time deposits" are defined in the clause as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.
      • The clause refers to regulated banking/cooperative/postal institutions; other deposit takers are not within the clause's scope as drafted.
      • Not stated in the document: effective date, procedural mechanics, or interactions with other Code provisions beyond the express references.

      Full Text:

      Section 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax