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 201 "Tax on income of new 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 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 201 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." It provides an elective concessional tax regime for certain newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies and specifies conditions, computation rules and exclusions. Affected parties: domestic companies engaged in manufacture/production and the tax administration. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The clause is framed as part of an Income Tax Bill, 2025. Statutory hooks referenced within the clause include Parts A, B and this Part of the Chapter (with an express exception for sections 199 and 200), and multiple provisions across the Income-tax enactment (sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapter VIII except sections 146 and 148, section 205(1)(a) to (g), section 116(1), section 205(4), section 205(2), and section 263(1) for due dates). The provision is limited to "a domestic company engaged in business of manufacture or production of any article or thing," and creates an option for such a company to compute income-tax at specified concessional rates subject to enumerated conditions and computation rules set out in sub-sections (2)-(5).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 201 creates an elective special tax computation regime for a domestic company engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The regime operates "irrespective of anything contained in this Act," but is subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part (other than sections 199 and 200). The Table prescribes four tax treatments: (a) 15% on total income except incomes in clauses (b), (c), (d); (b) 22% (without any deduction or allowance) on income that is neither derived from nor incidental to manufacturing/production and for which no specific rate has been provided separately under this Part; (c) 22% on short-term capital gains from transfer of capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable; (d) 30% on income deemed u/s 205(4). Eligibility is conditional on specified criteria in column D: exercise of the option as per sub-section (2); set-up/registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024; total income computation as per sub-section (3); and fulfilment of sub-section (5) and section 205(2).

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a legislative intent to provide an elective concessional tax regime for newly established manufacturing companies, but subject to precise temporal and procedural conditions. The "irrespective of anything contained in this Act" opening indicates a stand-alone/comprehensive computation model, constrained only by specified Parts and sections. The requirement that certain incomes be taxed at fixed percentage rates, and the prohibition in clause (b) on any deduction or allowance for the 22% category, indicate an intent to simplify/compress the tax base for qualifying incomes. The option mechanism and the non-withdrawable nature (sub-section (2)(c)) suggest a durable election once validly made.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions include:

      • Temporal eligibility: set-up and registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024.
      • Computation constraints under sub-section (3): exclusions from deductions (specified sections) and prohibition on set-off of certain losses/unabsorbed depreciation per section 116(1) where attributable to excluded deductions.
      • Option mechanics: must be exercised on or before the due date specified u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return for any tax year; once exercised, it applies to subsequent years and cannot be later withdrawn.
      • Invalidation: failure to fulfil eligibility conditions in any tax year causes invalidation of the option for that year and subsequent years, with application of other Act provisions as if the option had not been exercised.
      • Amalgamation rule: option survives only for the amalgamated company if the conditions in sub-section (1) continue to be satisfied by that company.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic company established on 15 November 2019 that commenced commercial manufacturing on 10 March 2024 and validly exercises the option by the specified due date will compute its manufacturing income at 15% and, if it has non-manufacturing income not covered by specific rates under this Part, such income will be taxed at 22% without deductions, pursuant to the Table. (Facts not beyond the text.)
      • Example 2: If a qualifying company derives short-term capital gains on a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act, such gains will be taxed at 22% as per clause (c). (Directly from the text.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with multiple other sections and Parts: it disapplies general provisions except as noted and requires computation "as per the provisions of sub-section (3)" which cross-references sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapters and specified parts of section 205, and section 116(1). It also refers to section 205(4) for deemed income at the 30% rate and to section 205(2) in eligibility. The option exercise due date is linked to section 263(1). The Bill itself does not include other notifications, rules or circulars; if any such instruments exist, they are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provided provisions and Practical Impact

      Comparison of the two documents (Section 201 - final statute as shown at Document 1, and Clause 201 - Bill old version at Document 2) reveals the following textual differences and their practical impact strictly as can be derived from the text:

      • Reference to Parts of the Chapter: The Bill (Document 2) refers to "Parts A, B and this Part" while the later version (Document 1) refers to "Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The inclusion of Part E in the later text expands the corpus of provisions under which specific rates of tax may be provided or under which interactions must be considered; consequently, the scope of provisions with which the concessional regime must be read may be broader in the later text. From the Bill text alone: the regime, as drafted there, excludes interaction with Part E; Document 1 includes Part E-thereby potentially changing the applicability of certain rates and interactions. (All conclusions are based on the textual difference; no external facts are stated.)
      • Clause (b) scope language: In the Bill (Document 2) clause (b)(ii) limits the 22% treatment to income "in respect of which no specific rate of tax has been provided separately under this Part." The later version (Document 1) instead references "under Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's narrower reference confines the carve-out to this Part only; the later version's wider reference brings within its ambit any specific rates provided in Parts A, B or E. This alters which incomes qualify for the 22% treatment under clause (b) depending on whether specific rates are in Parts A/B/E.
      • Specific cross-references and subsection numbering: The Bill lists "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)" while the later text lists "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)." The Bill cites "Chapter VIII other than sections 146 and 148" (plural) while the later text says "Chapter VIII other than section 146 or 148" (singular/or). The Bill refers to "section 205(1)(a) to (g)" (as a range) whereas the later text uses "sections specified in 205(1)(a) to (g)." The Bill cites "section 116(1)" whereas the later text cites "section 116."
        • Practical impact: These are drafting/precision differences. Where a specific sub-clause is cited in the Bill (e.g., 45(2)(c)), that confines the exclusion to that sub-clause rather than the whole of 45(2). Likewise, citing 116(1) narrows reference to that sub-subsection rather than section 116 as a whole. The practical consequence is interpretive: the Bill's more specific references potentially narrow the exclusions from deduction/set-off; the later text's broader references widen them. Absent other material, the Bill's text would limit the non-allowance of specific deductions to the narrowly enumerated paragraphs, whereas the later text indicates a broader non-allowance.
      • Minor drafting/format differences: Variations in plurality and punctuation (e.g., "such option, once exercised, shall apply to subsequent tax years;" appears same in both) do not change substance.
        • Practical impact: Minimal, limited to clarity and potential interpretive emphasis.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must track the temporal eligibility windows (set-up/registration and commencement dates), adhere to the option exercise deadline linked to section 263(1), and monitor continued fulfilment of conditions annually because a breach invalidates the option prospectively. The prohibition on certain deductions and set-offs requires careful computation and documentation to demonstrate attribution of losses/depreciation to excluded deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the necessity of contemporaneous evidence of incorporation/registration date, date of commencement of manufacturing/production, records establishing the nature of income (manufacturing versus non-manufacturing), allocation studies to show whether losses or depreciation are attributable to excluded deductions, and records evidencing exercise of the option within the prescribed manner and deadline. Specific forms/procedures for exercise are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 201 offers an elective concessional tax computation for newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies with fixed percentage tax rates for categories of income.
      • The option is time-sensitive, irrevocable once exercised, and may be invalidated upon failure to meet conditions in any year.
      • Certain deductions and set-offs are excluded when computing total income for purposes of the regime; precise cross-referenced sections limit allowable deductions.
      • Eligibility is contingent on incorporation/registration and commencement dates; these temporal thresholds are integral to qualification.
      • On amalgamation, the option survives only if the amalgamated company continues to satisfy the enumerated conditions.
      • Interplay with other Parts and sections is extensive; precise statutory cross-references create interpretive points that may require careful statutory construction.
      • Procedures, prescribed manner of exercising the option, and exact forms or rules for implementation are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax