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 199 "Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies." 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 199 Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is Clause 199 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), which proposes a concessional 25% tax rate for certain domestic manufacturing companies subject to specified conditions. It matters to domestic companies engaged in manufacture or production (and related research/distribution) that were set up on or after 1 March 2016, and to the tax administration in determining eligibility and compliance. The document does not state an explicit effective date beyond the reference to "tax year" or enactment; no decision date is provided in the text.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 199 is placed within the "New tax regime" part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It operates "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201," thereby creating a standalone concessional regime subject to limited interplay with other Parts and sections. The provision applies to "a person, being a domestic company," and allows computation of income-tax at a flat rate of 25% at the option of the company, subject to enumerated conditions. Definitions or further explanations (such as definition of "manufacture" or "domestic company") are not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 199(1) authorises, by company option, computation of income-tax at 25% for a domestic company for any tax year, subject to three key conditions:

      • Condition (a): The company must have been set up and registered on or after 1st March, 2016.
      • Condition (b): The company must be engaged solely in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, and research in relation to, or distribution of, such article or thing manufactured or produced by it. In other words, the business must be limited to manufacturing/production and related research/distribution activities.
      • Condition (c): The company's total income must be computed without certain deductions listed in sub-clause (i) and without set-off of any loss carried forward attributable to those deductions per sub-clause (ii).

      Clause 199(1)(c)(i) specifies that the computation must be without deduction under (A) sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b); (B) Chapter VIII-C, other than the provisions of section 146; or (C) sections specified in section 205(1)(a) to (g). Clause 199(1)(c)(ii) bars set-off of earlier year losses that are attributable to such disallowed deductions.

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a legislative intent to create a preferable, simplified tax rate for qualifying manufacturing companies, while preventing duplication or continuance of other specified tax benefits. The language "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" indicates a non-obstante clause intended to give the concessional rate primacy over other general provisions, but the carve-out "subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201" indicates preserved interaction with certain Parts and specified sections. The option-based framework (see sub-sections (3) and (4)) suggests a taxpayer election that, once made, binds the company to the regime unless a separate option u/s 200 is exercised.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any express exemptions other than the listed exclusions from deduction. The clause contains implicit carve-outs:

      • Chapter VIII-C benefits are excluded except for section 146 (i.e., section 146 remains available, while other provisions in Chapter VIII-C are not). The document does not elaborate on the content of Chapter VIII-C or on the policy reasons for preserving section 146 only.
      • Sections specified in section 205(1)(a) to (g) are also excluded; the content of those sections is not reproduced in the clause.
      • Losses attributable to the disallowed deductions are barred from set-off; subsection (2) deems such losses to have been given full effect to, preventing future deduction-this is an absolute prohibition with no stated time limitation.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic manufacturing company incorporated on 1 April 2017, carrying on only manufacture and distribution of its products, opts into Clause 199. It cannot claim tax deductions under Chapter VIII-C (except section 146), nor can it claim deductions u/ss 45(2)(c) or 47(1)(b). If it has earlier year losses attributable to those disallowed deductions, such losses cannot be set off in the option regime. (All specifics about amounts, calculation mechanics, and interplay with other sections are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A domestic company set up on 1 February 2016 would be ineligible because incorporation predates 1 March 2016. (The document does not state any transitional provisions.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly limits interaction with Parts A and B and "this Part" (i.e., the Part containing the clause), excluding sections 200 and 201. It excludes Chapter VIII-C benefits (except section 146) and the listed sections in section 205(1)(a)-(g). The clause calls for an option exercised "in the manner as prescribed" with a reference point to the due date specified u/s 263(1) for filing the first return; thus, it anticipates additional procedural rules to be prescribed. Specific interaction with other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the document: Companies seeking the 25% rate must ensure eligibility-date of registration (on/after 1 March 2016), exclusive engagement in manufacture/production with related research/distribution, and careful computation of total income excluding specified deductions. Non-compliance with these conditions would jeopardise entitlement to the concessional rate. The clause's election mechanism, including timing linked to section 263(1), creates a procedural compliance risk if the option is not validly exercised.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: Companies should maintain incorporation/registration records to evidence the registration date; detailed books and documents to demonstrate the nature of activities (manufacture/production, research, distribution) and to segregate income/expenses attributable to other businesses, if any; and documentation linking prior-year losses to specific deductions listed in Clause 199(1)(c)(i) to determine whether losses are barred from set-off.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 199 offers an elective flat 25% tax rate for qualifying domestic manufacturing companies incorporated on or after 1 March 2016.
      • Eligibility requires exclusive engagement in manufacture/production and related research/distribution; other business activities disqualify a company under the clause.
      • Certain deductions are expressly disallowed for companies opting into the regime-specifically sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b), most of Chapter VIII-C (except section 146), and sections referred to in section 205(1)(a)-(g).
      • Losses carried forward attributable to those disallowed deductions cannot be set off; subsection (2) deems such losses to have been given full effect to.
      • The concessional rate is elective, requires prescribed procedural exercise by the due date u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return, and once made, is binding unless section 200 is invoked; the document contains no detail on the prescribed manner.
      • The clause contains a non-obstante opening but preserves certain Parts/sections, indicating limited interplay rather than complete override of the Act.
      • Operational details (definitions, examples, prescribed forms/procedures, transitional rules, or effective date specifics) are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Documents and Practical Impact

      TopicEarlier Position (Clause 199 - Bill Old Version)Later Position (Section 199 - Act)
      Parts referenced as subject to"subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201""subject to the provisions of Parts A, B, E and this Part (other than sections 200 and 201) of this Chapter"
      Reference to section 45(2)Disallowance references "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)"Disallowance references "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)"
      Prescription wording for exercise of option"in the manner as prescribed""in the manner as may be prescribed"
      Typographical/clerical varianceSub-section (4) references "section section 200" (duplication)Sub-section (4) references "section 200" (single)

      Practical impact of each change:

      • Inclusion of Part E in the Act's version (Section 199) expands the set of statutory provisions that the new regime is "subject to." This broadens potential interactions and conditions that survive the non-obstante clause; companies and practitioners would need to consider Part E compliance where relevant. The Bill version omitting Part E would have left such interactions narrower. (Specific contents of Part E and practical consequences are Not stated in the document.)
      • The Bill's specific reference to section 45(2)(c) narrows the disallowance to a particular sub-paragraph of section 45(2), whereas the enacted Section 199's reference to section 45(2) more broadly excludes deductions under the whole of section 45(2). The broader reference in the Act can widen the range of deductions that are incompatible with the concessional regime, increasing the number of prior benefits/losses that may be denied. This is a substantive change affecting eligibility and post-election tax position.
      • The change from "in the manner as prescribed" to "in the manner as may be prescribed" is modest; the latter is a more conventional legislative drafting phrase indicating prescription power. It likely has no material effect beyond standardising drafting.
      • Correction of a typographical duplication ("section section 200") clarifies the cross-reference; it has no substantive legal effect beyond removing ambiguity.

      Full Text:

      Section 199 Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax