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 212 "Interpretation." 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 212 Interpretation.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These materials contain two closely related texts labeled Clause/Section 212 of the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025, providing definitions used in sections/clauses 213-218 dealing with special provisions for non-residents and foreign companies. The principal audience affected are taxpayers holding foreign exchange assets (including non-resident Indians) and the tax administration. Effective or enactment dates are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: the definitions are expressly stated to apply "In sections 213 to 218" (Bill/Act). The provision supplies definitional scaffolding for Chapter XIII-E (as the Bill notes) or the corresponding enacted sections. The clause/section enumerates defined terms: "foreign exchange asset", "investment income", "long-term capital gains", "non-resident Indian" and "specified asset". The texts otherwise mirror each other except for the statutory cross-reference used in sub-clause (e)(iv): the Bill (old version) cites section 2(c) of the Public Debt Act, 1944; the enacted Section cites section 2(f) of the Government Securities Act, 2006. No further definitions or interpretive guidance appear in the documents.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision applies "In sections 213 to 218". It creates definitions for five primary terms:

      • "foreign exchange asset": any specified asset which the assessee has acquired or purchased with, or subscribed to in, convertible foreign exchange.
      • "investment income": any income derived from a foreign exchange asset.
      • "long-term capital gains": income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to a capital asset, being a foreign exchange asset which is not a short-term capital asset.
      • "non-resident Indian": an individual who is not a resident and is (i) a citizen of India; or (ii) a person of Indian origin.
      • "specified asset": a closed list (subject to government notification) comprising-(i) shares in an Indian company; (ii) debentures issued by an Indian company which is not a private company as defined in the Companies Act, 2013; (iii) deposits with an Indian company which is not a private company as defined in the Companies Act, 2013; (iv) any security of the Central Government as defined in the relevant Act (Public Debt Act, 1944 in the Bill; Government Securities Act, 2006 in the enacted Section); and (v) such other assets as the Central Government may specify by notification.

      Interpretation

      The text supplies dictionary-style definitions to be applied within the specified sections. It anchors the concept of "foreign exchange asset" to acquisition using convertible foreign exchange, thereby linking the currency of acquisition to the asset's classification. "Investment income" is defined very broadly as any income derived from a foreign exchange asset, without qualification or sub-categorisation in the text. "Long-term capital gains" are defined by reference to the head "Capital gains" and the usual short-term/long-term distinction (i.e., a foreign exchange asset that is not a short-term capital asset). The definition of "non-resident Indian" follows a residency-plus-identity formulation (not resident + citizen or person of Indian origin), rather than a residency-only test.

      Legislative intent beyond the literal definitions is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      There are no provisos, carve-outs, or thresholds in the text other than the express exclusion of private companies from the debentures/deposits categories (the Companies Act, 2013 definition of "private company" determines that exclusion). The power for the Central Government to specify additional assets by notification (clause (e)(v)) is an express delegatory mechanism allowing expansion of "specified asset" beyond the enumerated categories. No procedural limits on that power are provided in the text.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual acquires shares of an Indian public company by subscribing to those shares using convertible foreign exchange. Those shares fall within "specified asset" (item (i)) and, having been acquired with convertible foreign exchange, qualify as a "foreign exchange asset". Any dividends or sale proceeds from those shares would therefore be "investment income" or capital gains depending on the nature of the receipt and period of holding.
      • Example 2: A non-resident Indian places funds as a deposit with an Indian public company (not a private company) by remitting convertible foreign exchange to India to make the deposit. The deposit is a "specified asset" under (iii) and, because acquired with convertible foreign exchange, a "foreign exchange asset"; interest received is "investment income".
      • Example 3: A foreign individual purchases a Central Government security as defined in the referenced statute using convertible foreign exchange. Whether that instrument is covered depends on which statutory definition applies-the Bill's Public Debt Act reference or the Act's Government Securities Act reference. The documents do not state the substantive difference between those definitions.

      Interplay

      The text expressly interacts with other statutes by reference: the Companies Act, 2013 (definition of "private company") and either the Public Debt Act, 1944 or the Government Securities Act, 2006 for the definition of Central Government securities. There is also an express delegation to the Central Government via notification for adding assets to the list. Interaction with rules, notifications, or circulars beyond the notification power is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      • Sub-clause (e)(iv) differs. The Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) refers to "any security of the Central Government as defined in section 2(c) of the Public Debt Act, 1944 (18 of 1944)". The enacted Section 212 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 refers instead to "any security of the Central Government as defined in section 2(f) of the Government Securities Act, 2006 (38 of 2006)".
      • Practical impact (as can be discerned from the texts): The legal meaning and scope of "security of the Central Government" in the list of "specified assets" will be determined by the Act whose definition is adopted. Because the two Acts are distinct statutory vehicles, their respective definitions may differ in what instruments qualify as government securities. The change therefore potentially broadens or narrows the catalogue of "specified assets" (and hence which instruments constitute "foreign exchange assets") depending on the substantive content of the referenced definition. The documents do not state the substantive differences between the two cross-referenced definitions; therefore the precise practical effect on asset coverage is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers and advisers must track the legal definition of "security of the Central Government" as the operative reference changed between the Bill and the enacted Section. That cross-reference determines the instruments captured as "specified assets" and therefore whether certain receipts are taxed under the special provisions in sections 213-218. The documents do not state transitional rules; therefore transitional or retrospective implications are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Because "foreign exchange asset" is predicated on acquisition "with, or subscribed to in, convertible foreign exchange", taxpayers should retain contemporaneous evidence of the currency and source of funds used to acquire specified assets (e.g., remittance records, forex conversion documents, bank receipts). The text itself does not set out required records or documentary tests; those procedural requirements are Not stated in the document.
      • Notification risk: Clause (e)(v) permits the Central Government to augment the list of specified assets by notification. Stakeholders must monitor Gazette notifications to determine if additional instruments become specified assets, which would expand the scope of foreign exchange asset classification and associated tax consequences. The procedure and standards for such notifications are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision supplies core definitions for sections 213-218, linking asset classification to acquisition by convertible foreign exchange.
      • "Specified asset" is a primarily closed list (shares, certain debentures, certain deposits, Central Government securities) with an open-ended notification power for additions.
      • The Bill and the enacted Section are identical except for the statutory cross-reference for "Central Government security": Public Debt Act, 1944 in the Bill versus Government Securities Act, 2006 in the enacted text.
      • The change of statutory reference may alter which government instruments qualify as specified assets, but the substantive effect is Not stated in the document.
      • The definitions make "investment income" broadly applicable to any income from foreign exchange assets, and define "non-resident Indian" by combining residency status with citizenship or origin.
      • Procedural, transitional, and interpretive guidance beyond the dictionary definitions is Not stated in the document.
      • Taxpayers should preserve evidence of currency of acquisition and monitor government notifications; the provision itself does not prescribe forms or timelines.

      Full Text:

      Section 212 Interpretation.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax