Loading...

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 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
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

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Act Rules Bills
    Proof of Official Entries in Tax Prosecutions : Clause 493 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Comparative Review of Non-Cognizable Offences in Indian Income Tax Legislation : Clause 492 of the I...
    Act Rules Bills
    Safeguards and Procedures in Income Tax Prosecution : Clause 491 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of official tax records: certified copies allowed as evidence, easing prosecution while preserving challenge rights.
Clause 493 mandates that entries in records or documents in the custody of an income-tax authority "shall be admitted in evidence" in prosecution proceedings under the chapter and permits proof either by production of the original records or by production of a certified copy signed by the custodian stating it is a true copy and that the originals are in its custody. The clause covers varied formats of records, limits application to criminal proceedings under the chapter, and preserves courts' power to test genuineness and require originals where fairness demands.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Non-cognizable classification of specified tax offences requires magistrate sanction before arrest or investigation, limiting summary enforcement.
Clause 492 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 designates specified income tax offences as non-cognizable for purposes of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by means of a non-obstante provision. As a result, arrest cannot be effected without a magistrate-issued warrant and investigations into those offences require prior magistrate authorization, imposing judicial gatekeeping at the threshold of criminal proceedings and constraining unilateral police action in tax enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Prior sanction for tax prosecution centralises oversight, enables compounding, and restricts arbitrary criminal initiation against taxpayers.
Clause 491 makes prior sanction by designated senior officers a precondition to prosecution for specified tax offences, authorises senior regional heads and the Board to issue directions, permits compounding of offences at any stage by senior officials, bars prosecution where specified penalties have been reduced or waived, and affirms that statements or documents given to tax authorities remain admissible notwithstanding an expectation of penalty reduction or compounding.
Act Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 223 "Tax on income of unit holder and business trust." 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 223 Tax on income of unit holder and business trust.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out special tax treatment for business trusts and their unit holders, including deeming provisions for distributed income and a charging provision for the trust. It affects business trusts and their unit holders (notably REITs/IITs as indicated in the document) and any person responsible for making payments on behalf of a business trust. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hook: Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - titled "Tax on income of unit holder and business trust" and placed under "Special provisions relating to pass-through entities." The clause addresses (i) attribution of nature and proportion of distributed income to unit holders, (ii) charging of tax on business trusts' total income, (iii) treatment of certain distributed income items as unit holder income in the tax year, (iv) a specified exclusion from the deeming rule, and (v) a reporting obligation on the payer. Definitions or extended explanations of terms (for example, "business trust", "unit holder", or Schedule V references) are Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 223 contains five sub-clauses that together create a special taxation regime for business trusts and their unit holders:

  • Sub-section (1): Any income distributed by a business trust to its unit holders shall be deemed to be of the same nature and in the same proportion in the hands of the unit holder as it had been received by, or accrued to, the business trust - "irrespective of anything contained in any other provisions of this Act." This is a deeming/attribution provision.
  • Sub-section (2): Subject to the provisions of sections 196 and 197, the total income of a business trust shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate.
  • Sub-section (3): If, in any tax year, distributed income (or part thereof) received by a unit holder is of a nature referred to in Schedule V (Table: Sl. No. 3) or (Table: Sl. No. 4), then such distributed income (or part) shall be deemed to be income of such unit holder and shall be charged to tax as income of the tax year.
  • Sub-section (4): Sub-section (1) shall not apply in respect of any sum referred to in section 92(2)(k) received by a unit holder from a business trust.
  • Sub-section (5): Any person responsible for making payment of the income distributed on behalf of a business trust to a unit holder shall furnish a statement to the unit holder and the prescribed authority, within such time and in such form and manner, as prescribed, giving the details of the nature of the income paid during the tax year and such other details, as prescribed.

Interpretation

The text indicates a legislative intent to treat pass-through distributions from business trusts transparently - attributing to unit holders the same character and proportion as enjoyed by the trust, and ensuring certain distributions are taxed in the hands of unit holders in the relevant tax year. The use of "irrespective of anything contained in any other provisions of this Act" signals a non-obstante clause that elevates the deeming rule over potentially conflicting provisions. The charging of the business trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate (subject to sections 196 and 197) suggests a measure to prevent tax leakage or mismatch at trust level, although the exact interplay with withholding or certification provisions in sections 196/197 is prescribed elsewhere in the Act. The text frames reporting obligations to enable administrative transparency.

Exceptions/Provisos

Explicit carve-outs in the clause: (a) sub-section (4) excludes any sum referred to in section 92(2)(k) from the deeming provision in sub-section (1). (b) sub-section (2) is qualified by "subject to the provisions of sections 196 and 197." No other provisos or thresholds are contained in the clause. Where the clause references Schedule V (Tables: Sl. No. 3 and Sl. No. 4), the content of those Tables is Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: If a business trust distributes an amount that, in the trust's hands, is profit from business, sub-section (1) deems that distributed sum to be of the same nature in the hands of the unit holder. (The document does not provide numerical illustrations.)

  • Example 2: If a distributed amount corresponds to an item listed at Schedule V Table Sl. No. 3, that distributed amount shall be deemed income of the unit holder and charged in the tax year of receipt. (Specifics of Schedule V items are Not stated in the document.)

Interplay

The clause explicitly interacts with sections 196, 197 and 92(2)(k) of the same Act and with Schedule V of the Bill. The reporting duty references a "prescribed authority" and prescribed form/timelines (both Not stated in the document). The clause does not itself reproduce definitions or cross-refer to SEBI regulations, but a marginal note in the document indicates the clause provides for special taxation regime for Infrastructure Investment Trusts and Real Estate Investment Trusts under their respective SEBI regulations; however, the clause text does not incorporate or define those regulatory regimes. Any further interaction with rules, notifications or administrative guidance is Not stated in the document.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: The deeming provision in sub-section (1) requires accurate characterisation by the trust of income streams so that unit holders are informed and taxed accordingly. Mischaracterisation at trust level could lead to incorrect taxation of unit holders; responsibility for accurate reporting appears to rest with the payer under sub-section (5). The charge in sub-section (2) of the trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate may produce higher tax at trust level unless mitigated by sections 196/197 mechanisms (details of which are Not stated in the document).
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The reporting obligation in sub-section (5) implies preservation of records that show the nature of distributed income and supporting evidence for the characterisation. The document does not detail retention periods, forms, or evidence standards; these are Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 223 imposes a deeming rule: distributed income retains the same nature and proportion in the hands of unit holders as in the business trust (sub-section (1)).
  • The total income of a business trust is chargeable at the maximum marginal rate, subject to sections 196 and 197 (sub-section (2)).
  • Distributed items identified in Schedule V (specified Tables) are expressly taxed as unit holder income in the tax year of receipt (sub-section (3)).
  • Sub-section (1) does not apply to sums referred to in section 92(2)(k) (sub-section (4)).
  • Payers of distributed income must furnish statements to unit holders and the prescribed authority with prescribed details, form and timing (sub-section (5)); specifics of prescription are Not stated in the document.
  • Definitions, Schedule V content, and procedural prescriptions (forms, timelines, prescribed authority) are Not stated in the document.
  • The clause is presented as a special regime for pass-through entities; the document notes an application to REITs/IITs, but the text of the clause does not itself define those entities or reference SEBI regulations.

Differences between Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 223 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Identified differences based strictly on the two provided texts:

  • Sub-section (2): Old Version references "sections 196 and 197"; the later Section 223 adds "and 198" (i.e., references to sections 196, 197 and 198). Practical impact: the legislative final text broadens the reservation/subject-to clause to include section 198 as well, thereby bringing any provisions or limitations in section 198 into the qualification for charging the trust's total income at the maximum marginal rate. Exact effect depends on the content of section 198, which is Not stated in the document.
  • Sub-section (5) wording: Old Version uses "as prescribed" for time/form/manner and for other details; Section 223 uses "as may be prescribed." Practical impact: this is a minor drafting variation that emphasises subordinate legislation by using "may be prescribed"; substantive change is not evident from the texts alone. The document does not state any change in the substance of prescribed requirements.
  • Contextual note: The Old Version includes an appended explanatory sentence that the clause provides for a special taxation regime for Infrastructure Investment Trusts and Real Estate Investment Trusts under SEBI regulations. That explanatory note is present in Document 2 but is Not part of the clause text. The final Section 223 text (Document 1) omits that explanatory sentence. Practical impact: the removal of that explanatory sentence from the statute text means the statute itself does not explicitly reference SEBI regimes; however, whether the provision applies to REITs/IITs is a matter of statutory interpretation and is Not stated in the document.

Actionable Points (derived from the clause)

  • Trusts and payers should establish processes to classify income items at trust level and document the character and proportion of distributions, since those determinations flow through to unit holders under the deeming rule.
  • Payers must prepare to furnish statements to unit holders and the prescribed authority in the prescribed form and time - though the exact form/timeline and the identity of the prescribed authority are Not stated in the document.
  • Unit holders should expect taxable consequences corresponding to the character of amounts received; specifics of Schedule V items that trigger immediate taxation in the hands of unit holders are Not stated in the document and require consulting the Schedule in the Bill/Act.

Full Text:

Section 223 Tax on income of unit holder and business trust.

Topics

Acts Income Tax