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 166 "Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 166 Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 166 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out the mechanism whereby an Assessing Officer may refer determination of arm's length price in relation to international transactions or specified domestic transactions to a designated Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). It affects taxpayers engaging in related-party cross-border and specified domestic dealings, the Income-tax Department (Assessing Officers and TPOs), and compliance workflows around transfer pricing. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 166 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version); cross-references to sections 165, 171, 172, 286, 287, 288, 246, 252, 253 and Chapter XVI-B are included. The provision governs referral, notice and determination procedures for arm's length pricing, the temporal application of such determinations to subsequent tax years via an opt-in mechanism, powers of the Transfer Pricing Officer, correction of apparent mistakes and administrative guidelines. Definitions: "Transfer Pricing Officer" is defined in the Clause (last sub-section) as a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board to perform functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 165 and 171 in respect of any person or class of persons.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 166 applies where an assessee has entered into an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction in any tax year and the Assessing Officer considers it necessary to refer the determination of arm's length price to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), subject to prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The TPO determination process includes issuance of notice to produce evidence, hearing the assessee, gathering and considering materials, and issuing a written order determining the arm's length price as per section 165(4). The TPO must send a copy of the order to the Assessing Officer and the assessee.

      Interpretation

      The Clause contemplates a two-tiered administrative model: initial assessment functions remain with the Assessing Officer, but specialized determination of arm's length price may be delegated (by referral) to a TPO. The text mandates prior approval of senior supervisory officers (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner) for a reference. The Clause prescribes that the TPO's order is binding on the Assessing Officer for purposes of computing total income (section 165(6)), subject to the special opt-in regime for applying a determined price to two subsequent tax years. The procedural steps (notice, hearing, consideration of documents, and written order) indicate an administrative due-process architecture. The reference to prescribed form, manner and period for exercising the opt-in indicates delegated rule-making scope; similar language governs conditions attached to validating options.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      - No reference under sub-section (1) shall be made if the TPO has declared an option exercised by the assessee under sub-section (9) to be valid for that tax year (sub-section (2)).

      - If a reference is made for a tax year for which an option has been or will be declared valid, sub-section (1) shall have effect as if no reference were made (sub-section (3)).

      - Sub-section (9) provides an opt-in mechanism: an arm's length price determined by the TPO for a tax year may apply to similar transactions for the two consecutive tax years immediately following, if the assessee exercises an option for those years in prescribed form, manner and time, and the TPO declares the option valid within one month from the end of the month in which the option is exercised. The opt-in does not apply to proceedings under Chapter XVI-B (sub-section (10)).

      - Sub-section (12) provides that where the TPO declares the option valid, the TPO shall examine and determine the arm's length price for the two consecutive years and on receipt of such order the Assessing Officer shall recompute the assessee's income as per the provisions of section 288 (text states "section 288").

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee enters into an international transaction in tax year 2024-25. The Assessing Officer refers pricing to the TPO with Principal Commissioner approval. The TPO issues notice, hears the assessee, and issues an order under sub-section (6) determining arm's length price. The Assessing Officer computes total income in conformity with that order u/s 165(6). (Textual sequence: referral -> notice -> determination -> AO computation.)
      • Example 2: Following the TPO order for 2024-25, the assessee exercises the option under sub-section (9) for 2025-26 and 2026-27. The TPO, within one month from the end of the month in which the option is exercised, declares the option valid. The TPO then examines and determines arm's length price for those two years and sends orders; the Assessing Officer recomputes income for those years as per section 288. (This scenario presumes the option and declaration steps set out in sub-sections (9) and (12).)

      Interplay

      Clause 166 cross-references section 165(4) for the substantive method of arm's length determination, section 171(2) for documents/information referenced at hearing, section 172 (reporting obligations) and sections 286/287/288 concerning limitation, amendment/rectification and recomputation procedures. It disapplies the opt-in in relation to Chapter XVI-B proceedings. The TPO is empowered to exercise specified powers u/ss 246(1)(a)-(d), 252(1)(a) or 253 for purposes of determining arm's length price, aligning investigative powers with existing procedural provisions.

      Differences between Clause 166 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Section 166 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 

      TopicClause 166 (Bill, Old Version)Section 166 (Act, 2025)
      Limitation language for timing of TPO orderSub-section (7) in Bill: "an order under sub-section (6) may be made at any time before sixty days before the expiry of limitation period referred to in section 286, or 296, for making the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment." (ambiguous phrasing)Section 166 (Act): Sub-section (7) states an order may be made "at any time sixty days before the expiry of the limitation period" (clearer formulation).
      Extension where remaining period < 60 daysBill sub-section (8) refers to circumstances in section 286(3)(b) or (i).Act sub-section (8) refers to section 286(3)(b) or (h).
      Opt-in prescription wordingBill uses "as prescribed" in sub-section (9)(b) and (c) uses "as prescribed".Act uses "as may be prescribed" consistently.
      Provision for guidelines - temporal limitBill contains an express sunset: "No guideline under sub-section (15) shall be issued after the expiration of two years from the 1st April, 2026." (sub-section (16) in Bill).Act does not contain this two-year prohibition; instead, Act has provisions on laying guidelines before Parliament (numbering differs).
      Parliamentary laying and numberingBill: Parliamentary laying provision is sub-section (17); definition of TPO is sub-section (18).Act: Parliamentary laying provision appears as sub-section (16) and definition of TPO as sub-section (17).
      Recomputation reference for two yearsBill sub-section (12) directs the Assessing Officer to recompute income "as per the provisions of section 288."Act sub-section (12) references recomputation "as per the provisions of section 288(2)." (more specific).

      Practical impact of those differences: the Act's clearer timing language reduces ambiguity about the deadline for TPO orders; the change from references to subsections of section 286 (i)/(h) could affect which circumstances trigger limitation extension and thus the time available to TPOs; the sunset on issuing guidelines in the Bill (two-year cutoff) would have limited the Board's delegated power to issue guidelines after a set date - its absence in the Act means continued open-ended guideline authority (subject to parliamentary laying). The specificity of section references for recomputation (section 288(2) in the Act versus section 288 in the Bill) narrows procedural applicability and could affect rectification/recomputation mechanics. Numbering and minor drafting variations may create interpretive questions but do not alter the core referral framework.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers with related-party international or specified domestic transactions face potential referral to a TPO, which centralises technical scrutiny of transfer pricing. The opt-in mechanism creates an incentive to regularise pricing for two subsequent years but requires strict adherence to prescribed forms, manner and timelines (prescription itself: Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Clause emphasises production of evidence on which the assessee relies and references documents/information u/s 171(2). Accordingly, contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation, contractual records, benchmarking studies and supporting data are necessary for the TPO hearing. Specific documentary lists or formats: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Assessing Officer may, with prior approval, refer arm's length price determination to a designated Transfer Pricing Officer for international and specified domestic transactions.
      • The TPO follows a formal notice, evidence, hearing and written order procedure; the order is sent to the Assessing Officer and the assessee and governs computation u/s 165(6).
      • An opt-in allows a TPO's arm's length determination for one year to be applied to similar transactions for the two immediately following years, subject to prescribed conditions and a TPO validation step.
      • The Clause confers on the TPO certain powers to require information and to amend orders for mistakes apparent from record, and cross-links to other assessment and limitation provisions.
      • Details on prescribed forms/manner/period for option exercise, timelines for AO/TPO actions beyond those specified, and effective date/commencement are not provided in the Clause ("Not stated in the document.").

      Full Text:

      Section 166 Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax