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 209 "Tax on income from bonds or Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer." 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 209 Tax on income from bonds or Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These documents reproduce Clause 209 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 209 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 as enacted. Both provisions impose special tax treatment for non-residents on income from certain bonds and Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) purchased in foreign currency and on capital gains arising on their transfer. The changes between the Bill and the enacted Section are primarily textual, reference-based and procedural in nature; they affect computation wording, cross-references to other sections, and a minor definitional cross-reference. Affected parties: non-resident investors, financial intermediaries (approved intermediaries), Indian issuing companies and tax administration. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause/Section 209, appearing in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and in the Income-tax Act, 2025 respectively. The provision is located within the special provisions relating to non-residents and foreign companies. The text covers income from (i) interest on specified bonds issued by Indian companies or public sector companies and purchased in foreign currency; (ii) dividends on Global Depository Receipts acquired in foreign currency through an approved intermediary; and (iii) long-term capital gains on transfer of those bonds or GDRs. The enacted section also contains procedural provisions governing deductions, returns, and certain transitional/amalgamation situations. Definitions provided in the enacted section include 'approved intermediary' (as per a Central Government-notified scheme) and a cross-reference defining 'Global Depository Receipts' (section 193(4)(a) in the Act). The Bill version contains similar material but uses a different cross-reference for GDRs (section 190(4)(a)).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision applies to an assessee who is a non-resident and whose total income includes any of the incomes specified in the statutory Table. The Table enumerates four entries:

      • Interest on (a) bonds of an Indian company issued under a Central Government notified scheme, or (b) bonds of a public sector company sold by the Government, when purchased in foreign currency - taxed at 10%.
      • Dividends on Global Depository Receipts - where the GDRs are issued/re-issued under notified schemes and purchased in foreign currency through an approved intermediary - taxed at 10%.
      • Long-term capital gains on transfer of the bonds or GDRs referred to above - taxed at 12.5%.
      • The remainder: total income as reduced by the incomes in items 1-3 - in the enacted section described as "Rates in force"; in the Bill as "Income-tax chargeable on such income."

      Interpretation

      The enacted text frames the tax liability of a non-resident as "the aggregate of income-tax computed at the rate specified in column C applied on the corresponding income specified in column B." This language emphasises a rate-applied computation for each head listed. The Bill phrasing (aggregate of the amounts mentioned in column C) is functionally similar but less explicit about the computation methodology. The enacted provision also expressly excludes application of section 72(6) for computation of long-term capital gains on these specified assets.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Several limiting or procedural provisions are present:

      • Where a non-resident's gross total income consists only of interest and/or dividends as specified (items 1 and 2), no deductions are allowed under enumerated provisions (enacted section cites sections 28 to 58, 60 and 61; Bill cited sections 26 to 61).
      • Where the gross total income includes any of items 1-3, the gross total income is to be reduced by such income and deductions under Chapter VIII are to be allowed as if the reduced gross total income were the gross total income of the assessee.
      • A non-resident need not furnish a return u/s 263(1) if total income in the year consisted only of the interest/dividend incomes in items 1-2 and tax was deducted at source under Chapter XIX-B.
      • Transitional/amalgamation rule: where GDRs or bonds are acquired by an assessee in an amalgamated or resulting company by virtue of holding such instruments in the amalgamating or demerged company, the same provisions apply to such GDRs or bonds.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-resident holds interest-bearing bonds of an Indian company purchased in foreign currency and receives interest of X in the year. The interest is taxed at 10% under item 1. Not stated in the document whether grossing up, surcharges or cesses apply beyond the stated rate.
      • Example 2: A non-resident sells long-term GDRs (acquired in foreign currency through an approved intermediary) and realises capital gain Y. The long-term capital gain is taxed at 12.5% as per item 3. Not stated in the document whether indexation or specific computation method for capital gain is modified beyond the exclusion of section 72(6).

      Interplay

      The enacted section cross-references other statutory provisions: Chapters and sections governing deductions (Sections 28-58, 60, 61), Chapter VIII deductions, section 72(6) (specifically excluded), the return filing provision referenced (section 263(1) in the texts), Chapter XIX-B (TDS provisions) and the definition of GDRs (section 193(4)(a) in the Act text; Bill referenced section 190(4)(a)). The documents do not reproduce the content of those cross-referenced provisions; therefore detailed interaction mechanics are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Clause 209 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 209 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      TopicBill (Clause 209 Old Version)Enacted Section 209Practical impact
      Computation wording"aggregate of the amounts mentioned in column C thereof.""aggregate of income-tax computed at the rate specified in the column C applied on the corresponding income specified in column B."clearer computational method in the enacted text ensuring rates are applied to corresponding income heads rather than potentially interpreted as flat sums.
      Residual income wording (Table item 4)"Income-tax chargeable on such income.""Rates in force."enacted text signals application of prevailing tax rates to the residual income; the Bill phrase might have invited alternative interpretations of chargeability. Exact fiscal consequences Not stated in the document.
      Cross-references to deduction sectionsExcludes deductions u/ss 26 to 61 (and certain sub-clauses) and under Chapter VIII.Excludes deductions u/ss 28 to 58, 60 and 61 (and certain sub-clauses) and under Chapter VIII.the enacted text alters the catalogue of excluded deduction sections; which specific deductions are affected is Not stated in the document.
      Definition cross-reference for "Global Depository Receipts"Cross-refers to section 190(4)(a).Cross-refers to section 193(4)(a).depends on the substantive definitions in those sections-Not stated in the document.
      Minor drafting/typo correctionsContains editorial notes/corrections in the Bill (e.g., "as per with" corrected to "as per").Polished enacted language ("as may be notified by the Central Government").reduces ambiguity; no substantive policy change apparent from document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Non-resident taxpayers receiving the enumerated incomes must ensure correct application of the specified rates (10% for interest/dividend; 12.5% for long-term capital gains) and must verify whether their gross total income consists solely of those heads to determine deductibility limits and return filing obligations. The enacted text's explicit computation language reduces ambiguity when computing aggregate tax on the heads in the Table.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision emphasises acquisition "in foreign currency" and purchase "through an approved intermediary" for GDRs; therefore investors and intermediaries should retain evidence of currency of purchase and intermediary approval status under a Central Government-notified scheme. Not stated in the document are the particulars of the scheme or the certification/documentation required by the approved intermediary; those details are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts impose special fixed rates for non-residents on interest (10%), dividends on GDRs (10%) and long-term capital gains on transfer of such assets (12.5%).
      • The enacted section clarifies computation language - "income-tax computed at the rate specified" - whereas the Bill used a less explicit phrase "aggregate of the amounts mentioned". Practical effect: clearer computational instruction in the enacted text.
      • Cross-reference differences: enacted section cites deduction sections as 28-58, 60 and 61; the Bill cited 26-61. This narrows the list of excluded deductions in the enacted text relative to the Bill; practical impact depends on which specific provisions were moved/excluded (details Not stated in the document).
      • The enacted section uses a different cross-reference for the statutory definition of "Global Depository Receipts" (section 193(4)(a)) versus the Bill's section 190(4)(a). The practical significance depends on the definitions in those sections (Not stated in the document).
      • The enacted provision replaces the Bill's phrase "Income-tax chargeable on such income" for the residual income with "Rates in force", which suggests that the balance of income will be taxed under prevailing rates rather than by reference to a specific computation language in the Table. The exact fiscal effect is Not stated in the document.
      • Procedural provisions on returns and applicability on amalgamation are retained in substance; they require documentary corroboration for threshold compliance (Not stated in the document as to the precise documentary standards).

      Full Text:

      Section 209 Tax on income from bonds or Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax