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 207 "Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      5 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets special tax treatment for non-residents (other than companies) and foreign companies in respect of dividends, specified categories of interest, distributed income on certain instruments, income arising from units of mutual funds/UTI purchased in foreign currency, royalties and technical service fees. It prescribes specified tax rates for these incomes and limits deductions; the provision affects taxpayers who are non-resident individuals and foreign companies, as well as Indian deductors. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out special tax treatment for non-residents (not being a company) and foreign companies where their total income includes specified categories: dividends, certain interest receipts, distributed income, income in respect of units of specified mutual funds/UTI, royalty, and fees for technical services. The provision prescribes fixed rates (largely 20%, with exceptions such as 10% for IFSC unit dividends and 5% for certain infrastructure debt fund interest), and provides that the aggregate income-tax payable on the total income shall be the sum of the taxes specified for those income heads and the income-tax chargeable on the residual total income.

      The section applies when the total income of the non-resident includes any income in column B of the prescribed tables. For royalties and fees for technical services received in pursuance of specified agreements (post-31 March 1976), subject to approval or conformity with industrial policy, similar prescribed taxes apply.

      Interpretation

      The provision adopts a source-based, head-specific approach: particular income heads are assigned specific tax rates, and the aggregate tax payable is the sum of the taxes on those heads plus tax on the remainder of total income. Legislative intent indicated by the text is to provide certainty through fixed withholding/tax rates for certain cross-border payments to non-residents/foreign companies. The text distinguishes between specified low rates for targeted investment vehicles (IFSC, infrastructure debt funds) and higher standard rates for other passive income categories.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (2) creates an exception-like framework for royalties and FTS where the income arises under agreements made after 31 March 1976 and either approved by the Central Government (if with an Indian concern) or conforming to then-current industrial policy. Sub-section (3) narrows the application of sub-section (2) for royalty payments that are consideration for transfer/grant of rights in copyright of a book to an Indian concern or in respect of computer software to a person resident in India: in those cases sub-section (2) applies "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." Other provisos: definitions limiting "computer software" and cross-reference to section 59 for certain excluded incomes.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident (not being a company) receives dividends (not from an IFSC unit) and no other income. The dividend income is taxed at 20% as per Sl. No. 1. If that is the only income in the gross total income, no deduction under Chapter VIII is allowed. (Note: specific Chapter VIII content Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A foreign company receives royalties from an Indian concern under an agreement approved by the Central Government. Such royalties (other than section 59(1) income) are taxed at 20% under sub-section (2). If the royalty is for transfer of copyright in a book to an Indian concern, sub-section (3) applies and the provisions of sub-section (2) apply "without application of provisions of clause (a) or (b) of that sub-section." The exact operational consequence of that phrase is not further explained in the clause. (Further interpretive detail Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to section 9 for meanings of "royalty" and "fees for technical services", to section 59(1) for certain excluded incomes, to section 393(2) for rates applicable to certain interest/distributed income, and to Chapter VIII and section 263(1) for return filing and deduction rules. It also references Schedule VII and Schedule VII Table item numbers for identifying specified funds and mutual funds. The clause does not set out procedural rules or tax collection mechanics; those are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 207 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 207 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Table formatting and wording for income-tax payable: In Document 1 the column C heading is "Rate of Income-tax payable" and for the final row (Sl. No. 8) it reads "Rates in force." In Document 2 the corresponding column heading is "Income-tax payable" and the final row reads "Income-tax chargeable on such income."
        • Practical impact: the Act text (Document 1) appears to fix the phrase to indicate specified rates for listed items and uses "Rates in force" for residual income; the Bill uses a more general phrase. Substantively both convey that normal rates apply to residual income; difference is terminological and unlikely to alter tax computation in practice.
      • Sub-section (4)(a) - Definition of "computer software": Document 1 states "or any customised electronic data or any product or service of similar nature as may be notified by the Board, which is transmitted or exported from India to a place outside India by any means;" Document 2 states the same but omits the phrase "as may be" before "notified by the Board" and places a semicolon differently.
        • Practical impact: no substantive change to meaning; both leave scope to Board notifications.
      • Scope of disallowed deductions (sub-section (5)): Document 1 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 58, 60 and 61 and section 93"; Document 2 disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 61 and section 93."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 excludes section 59 from the disallowance list (by omitting it when listing 28-58, 60 and 61), whereas Document 2's phrasing "28 to 61" would include section 59 within the disallowed range. This is a substantive drafting difference: Document 1 appears to preserve section 59 (which is referenced elsewhere in the section as describing certain excluded incomes) outside the blanket disallowance; Document 2 would disallow deductions even when income falls u/s 59 unless other text provides otherwise. Practical impact: potential change in deductible expenditures permitted against certain royalty/FTS incomes if section 59 incomes are intended to be treated differently. This may affect non-resident tax liabilities and treaty interpretations; however, the precise operational effect depends on interaction with section 59 and other provisions.
      • Sub-section (6) - Chapter VIII / Schedule references and treatment: Document 1 specifies "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII and Schedule XV" when gross total income consists only of the incomes listed; Document 2 states "no deduction shall be allowed under Chapter VIII" (no mention of Schedule XV).
        • Practical impact: Document 1 narrows allowances further by expressly excluding Schedule XV deductions in the single-income scenario; Document 2 does not include that express exclusion. This difference potentially alters whether certain Schedule XV deductions remain available. The practical effect depends on what Schedule XV contains (Not stated in the document).
      • Overall syntactic and typographical corrections: Document 1 shows tightened punctuation, clearer tables and explicit reference to Schedule XV, while Document 2 contains trailing editorial notes and minor inconsistencies.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 (Act) appears to be a cleaned-up final version; substantive differences of practical consequence are mainly the treatment of section 59 in the disallowance range (sub-section (5)) and the explicit Schedule XV exclusion in sub-section (6).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must correctly classify income under the listed heads (dividend, various interest types, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income) to apply the prescribed rates. Misclassification risks incorrect tax withholding and potential assessments. The cross-references to sections 9, 59 and 393(2) mean interpretive disputes may arise on the scope of "royalty" and "fees for technical services" as defined elsewhere. The treatment of deductions (disallowance u/ss 28-61 per this Bill text) creates a compliance risk where taxpayers expect to claim routine business deductions against such income but find them disallowed.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where reduced rates apply (IFSC dividends, infrastructure fund interest), taxpayers will need documentary proof (e.g., confirmation of IFSC unit status, Schedule VII fund identification) to substantiate entitlement. For royalty/FTS taxed under subsection (2), written evidence of Central Government approval of agreements or conformity with industrial policy will be essential. The clause does not specify particular forms or timelines for producing such evidence (Not stated in the document).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 207 prescribes head-specific fixed tax rates for non-residents/foreign companies on passive income heads (dividend, interest, royalty, FTS, distributed income, unit income).
      • Certain preferential rates apply (10% for IFSC unit dividends; 5% for qualifying infrastructure debt fund interest).
      • Royalties and FTS under specified post-1976 agreements attract 20% (subject to approval/policy conditions), with a further carve-out for certain royalty transfers under sub-section (3).
      • The Bill disallows deductions under a broad range of sections (28-61) for computing incomes listed, constraining offset of expenses against these incomes.
      • When such listed incomes form only the gross total income, deductions under Chapter VIII are barred.
      • The provision relies on multiple cross-references (sections 9, 59, 263(1), 393(2) and schedules) for definitions, exclusions and rates; interpretive disputes may arise at those intersections.
      • Specific procedural, evidentiary and administrative details (forms, withholding mechanisms, applicability in presence of tax treaties, relief provisions) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 207 Tax on dividends, royalty and fees for technical service in case of foreign companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax