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 "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others." 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 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) proposes a new, optional tax regime for specified persons (individuals, HUFs, AOPs, BOIs and certain juridical persons) prescribing slab rates and limiting specified exemptions and deductions. It matters to taxpayers choosing between regimes, tax administrators and sectors with deductions under enumerated provisions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (a provision within the Bill titled "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others"). The provision aims to create an alternative tax computation regime for persons listed in subsection (1). Coverage: the persons enumerated in subsection (1)(a)-(e). Definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the enumerated categories; references to "this Part" and "Parts A, B" indicate linkage to other Parts of the Bill but the contents of those Parts are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause creates, by default, a tax computation regime whereby income-tax for a tax year "shall" be computed at specified slab rates (nil up to Rs. 4,00,000; 5% up to Rs. 8,00,000; 10% up to Rs. 12,00,000; 15% up to Rs. 16,00,000; 20% up to Rs. 20,00,000; 25% up to Rs. 24,00,000; 30% above Rs. 24,00,000). This applies "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" but subject to Parts A, B and this Part. The default applies unless the person exercises an option as provided in subsection (4). The clause applies to specified persons: individuals; HUFs; AOPs (other than co-operative societies); bodies of individuals; and artificial juridical persons as per section 2(77)(g).

      Interpretation

      The text indicates legislative intent to introduce a simplified, optional regime with specific rate slabs and concomitant limitation on a list of exemptions/deductions. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: (i) the new regime is prima facie overriding of other provisions ("Irrespective of anything contained in this Act") save those Parts; (ii) because the provision enumerates specific exclusions from deductions/exemptions, the clause is to be read as a self-contained regime requiring affirmative opt-in/opt-out mechanics per subsection (4); (iii) specified carve-outs and modifications (e.g., Chapter VIII carve-outs and IFSC special rule) are deliberate limits to the general non-allowance rule. Legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs: subsection (2) prescribes that "total income" for the regime shall be computed without any exemption or deduction under the listed provisions-Schedule III entries (specified table items), sections 144, 19(1) (Table: Sl. No.1), 22(1)(b) (re properties in section 21(6)), 33(8), 48, 49, 45(3)(a)/(b)/(c), 46, 47(1)(a), and "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146." Further, subsection (2)(b) excludes set-off of certain carried forward losses or depreciation attributable to the exclusions, and disallows set-off of house property loss against other heads. Subsection (2)(c) excludes any exemption or deduction for allowances/perquisites provided under any other law. Subsection (3) deems such loss and depreciation as already given full effect-no further deduction later. Opt-in/opt-out rules in subsection (4) provide procedural timings and restrictions (see below). Subsection (5) provides a modification for IFSC units (subject to conditions) - specific temporal scope is included in the Act but in the Bill the provision is limited to certain tax years (see Background & Scope comparison above).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual with total income Rs. 9,00,000 under the new regime would be taxed at 5% on income from Rs.4,00,001-8,00,000 and 10% on Rs.8,00,001-9,00,000. Not stated: interaction with surcharge/cess or rebate-Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An HUF claiming deductions under Schedule III (Table Sl. No. 5) would not be permitted that deduction when computing total income under this regime. Not stated: whether Schedule III entries have alternative relief mechanisms-Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly attempts to sit alongside other provisions by overriding them save where otherwise provided ("Irrespective... but subject to Parts A, B and this Part"), and by listing specific provisions whose exemptions/deductions are not allowed. It further contemplates exceptions (Chapter VIII carve-outs) and special treatment for IFSC units. Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document. Interaction with Chapter XVII-B (if any) or Parts E: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 202 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)and Practical Impact

      • Scope vis-`a-vis other parts of the Act: Act version (Document 1) qualifies subsection (1) with "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act other than Chapter XVII-B but subject to Parts A, B, E and this Part of this Chapter," whereas the Bill version (Document 2) states "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Act excludes Chapter XVII-B explicitly and adds Part E in the list; the Bill does not refer to Chapter XVII-B or Part E and omits an explicit carve-out. This may change which other provisions (for instance, Chapter XVII-B matters) override or interact with the new regime. Practically, taxpayers and practitioners must check whether Chapter XVII-B or Part E contain provisions intended to operate alongside or override the new regime; the Act clarifies that Chapter XVII-B is not overridden, reducing uncertainty.
      • Drafting differences in subsection (2)(a)(xii): The Act (Document 1) refers to "Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1) and 124(2), or 125(2) or 146;" the Bill (Document 2) refers to "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146;"
        • Practical impact: Different cross-references to provisions of Chapter VIII are carved out from the exclusions. The Act permits sections 124(1) and 124(2), 125(2) and 146 to remain applicable (i.e., they are exceptions to the general non-allowance rule), while the Bill's exceptions include 124(1), 125(3) and 146 - notably listing 125(3) instead of 125(2). This change affects which specific provisions of Chapter VIII yield deductions/exemptions under the new regime. Practitioners must verify which subsection of section 125 is intended to remain effective; the Act's selection may be broader or narrower depending on content of those subsections (document does not state substantive content of those sections).
      • Modification for IFSC units in subsection (5): Act (Document 1) provides: "the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction u/s 147 shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section." Bill (Document 2) refers to: "In case of a person, having a Unit in the International Financial Services Centre, who has exercised the option under sub-section (4) for any tax year from 2020-21 to 2023-24, the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction under the said section shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section."
        • Practical impact: The Bill limits the special rule to units which exercised the option for 2020-21 to 2023-24; the Act removes that temporal restriction and frames it generally (no reference to specific tax years). Practically, the Act broadens availability of deduction u/s 147 for IFSC units without the historical exercise requirement, benefiting more IFSC taxpayers; the Bill's limitation would have constrained relief to a subset who opted in that historic window.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation variances: There are small differences in punctuation (commas, full stops) and phrasing ("in such manner as may be prescribed" vs. "in such manner as prescribed" in sub-section (4));
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting, but may influence interpretation of prescription of procedure. The Act's phrasing "in such manner as may be prescribed" follows common statutory formulation permitting subordinate legislation; the Bill's wording is slightly less conventional but substance appears same. Document does not state legislative debate or intent behind wording changes.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Taxpayers must decide to opt out of the default simplified regime by exercising the option in the prescribed manner; those with business/professional income must exercise option on or before the due date for furnishing returns u/s 263(1) (as referenced). Failure to follow the procedure may lock a taxpayer into the default tax computation with limited deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the enumerated disallowances and the deeming in subsection (3) that losses/depreciation are fully given effect to, taxpayers should retain documentation showing prior loss/ depreciation origins and any correspondence or filings demonstrating exercise/withdrawal of the option and timing. The document does not specify forms, formats or filing codes-Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause establishes a default simplified tax slab regime for specified persons, with detailed slab rates.
      • The regime disallows a range of specified exemptions and deductions when computing "total income", and restricts set-off of certain losses.
      • Taxpayers can opt out/opt in subject to timing and one-time withdrawal rules; business/profession taxpayers have a specified due date for option exercise.
      • There is a deemed finality for certain losses/depreciation-no further deduction in later years.
      • Special modification exists for IFSC units regarding deduction u/s 147, but the Bill limits this to certain tax years (2020-21 to 2023-24) in the Old Version.
      • Several cross-references to Parts and Chapters indicate this clause's operation is contingent on other Bill provisions; those other provisions are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical compliance requires careful timing and documentation; procedural details and administrative rules are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax