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 229 "Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      6 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 229 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the manner of computing depreciation and treatment of capital gains for assets under the tonnage tax scheme applicable to shipping companies. It defines procedures for splitting written down value (WDV) between qualifying ships and non-qualifying ships, treatment where assets move between businesses, and treatment of capital gains on transfers. The provision affects taxpayers in the shipping industry and the tax department; effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 229 sits within the Part addressing special provisions relating to income of shipping companies and operates in conjunction with section 230(1)(d) (referred to for depreciation computation). The clause governs (a) computation of depreciation for the first tax year of the tonnage tax scheme, (b) allocation of WDV between qualifying and non-qualifying ships, (c) creation of separate blocks of qualifying assets, (d) adjustment when assets change use between tonnage tax business and other business, (e) allocation of depreciation for part-year use, and (f) treatment of capital gains on transfer of qualifying assets with reference to sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for computation. Definitions provided in the clause: "book written down value" means written down value as per books of accounts; "written down value" means written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax. The clause does not otherwise define "tonnage tax business," "qualifying ship," or other terms within this text. Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 229(1) mandates that for computing depreciation u/s 230(1)(d), the first-year depreciation for the tonnage tax scheme shall be computed on the WDV of qualifying ships determined under sub-section (2).
      • Clause 229(2) prescribes an apportionment formula: the WDV (A) of the existing block of assets (ships) as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year is to be divided between qualifying assets (D) and other assets (E) in proportion to the book WDV of qualifying assets (B) and other assets (C) as on the last day of the preceding tax year, via D = A x B / (B+C) and E = A x C / (B+C).
      • Clause 229(3) states that the block of qualifying assets as determined under sub-section (2) shall constitute a separate block of assets for the purposes of the Part (i.e., for depreciation rules).
      • Clause 229(4) addresses movements: (a) where a qualifying asset begins to be used for non-tonnage tax business, an appropriate portion of WDV is transferred from the qualifying block to the other block by A = B x C / D (with variables defined in the sub-clause); (b) conversely, where an other asset begins to be used for the tonnage tax business, an apportioned value is moved from the other block to the qualifying block by E = F x G / I (variables defined).
      • Clause 229(5) requires allocation of depreciation for assets changing use during a tax year in proportion to days of use in each business.
      • Clause 229(6) declares that depreciation on the newly created blocks shall be allowed as if the WDV referred in sub-section (2) had been brought forward from the preceding tax year.
      • Clause 229(7) supplies two definitions: "book written down value" and "written down value" (as described above).
      • Clause 229(8)-(9) provide that profits/gains on transfer of qualifying assets are chargeable u/ss 67 and 74 and calculated u/ss 67-81; for that purpose section 74 shall operate as if "written down value of the block of assets" were replaced by "written down value of the block of qualifying assets." Clause 229(10) clarifies "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" is as computed under sub-section (2).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts an allocation-by-proportion approach: the book WDV split (B and C) as at the last day of the preceding year governs apportionment of the existing fiscal WDV (A) to qualifying and other blocks. Legislative purpose, as discernible from the text, is to align tax depreciation in the first tonnage tax year with accounting distinctions between qualifying and other ships, while preserving continuity for tax WDV by deeming the apportioned WDV had been brought forward. The declared substitution for section 74 ensures capital gains computations reflect the qualifying block's WDV rather than the overall block. The clause indicates an intent to prevent mismatch between book and tax positions when ships move between business uses by prescribing proportional transfers and day-count allocation. No extrinsic legislative history or policy rationale beyond these textual mechanisms is provided. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, exemptions, thresholds, or exceptions are included beyond the mechanics for allocation and transfer on change of use, and the day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for part-year use. Not stated in the document: any caps, transitional time limits beyond "first tax year," or special treatment for leased vessels, second-hand ships, or cross-border issues.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (illustrative application consistent with the text): A block of ships has book WDV B = 60 and C = 40 as at preceding year-end; tax WDV A = 100. Then D = 100 x 60/(60+40) = 60 and E = 100 x 40/(60+40) = 40; qualifying and other blocks are created with those tax WDVs.
      • Example 2 (change of use): Within the tax year, a qualifying ship with book WDV C (as described in sub-clause) begins non-tonnage use; the appropriate portion to move to other block is calculated as A = B x C / D (per variables defined in the clause) and depreciation for that tax year on the asset is allocated by days used for each business.
      • Example 3 (capital gains): On disposal of a qualifying asset, capital gains are taxed u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if reference were to the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" computed under sub-section (2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 230(1)(d) for depreciation computation, and with sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for capital gains charge and computation. No mention is made of specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that further elucidate implementation. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to definitions elsewhere in the Act (e.g., definition of "tonnage tax scheme" or "qualifying ship") or to accounting standards.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope language: The Act (Document 1) expressly refers to "ships or inland vessels" in sub-section (2); the Bill (Document 2) refers only to "ships" (with "inland vessels" absent).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of inland vessels in the enacted text broadens coverage to inland shipping operators who would not clearly have been covered under the Bill's language.
      • Temporal reference for A in sub-section (2): The Bill (Document 2) defines A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year." The Act (Document 1) describes A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships or inland vessel, as the case may be, as on the first day of the tax year."
        • Practical impact: The change of reference date from "last day of the immediately preceding tax year" to "first day of the tax year" (and harmonising the asset description with inland vessels) alters the base value used in allocation; administratively this can affect numeric allocation of WDV between qualifying and other blocks and therefore depreciation in the first tonnage-tax year.
      • Definitions: The Bill (Document 2) includes two defined terms in sub-section (7): (a) "book written down value" and (b) "written down value" (explicitly defined as written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax). The Act (Document 1) contains only a definition for "book written down value" in sub-section (7).
        • Practical impact: Omission of the express statutory definition of "written down value" in the enacted section could leave a textual lacuna; however, administrative practice or other statutory definitions elsewhere may supply that meaning. Absent an express definition here, taxpayers and revenue may engage different interpretive approaches to the term when applying the allocation formula.
      • Wording concerning brought-forward written down value: The Bill (Document 2) uses clarifying language - "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that..." - in sub-section (6). The Act (Document 1) frames the same rule without the "removal of doubts" preamble.
        • Practical impact: The substantive effect appears the same (treating the created blocks as if WDV were brought forward), but the Bill's declaratory phrase emphasises intent to remove ambiguity; its omission from the Act is stylistic and arguably does not change legal effect.
      • Formula presentation and labelling: Both texts supply proportionate allocation formulas for initial division and for movements between qualifying and other assets. The Act's printed formulas in the supplied extraction show slight formatting differences and consistent broader reference to "ships or inland vessels."
        • Practical impact: No substantive change to mathematical approach is evident, but the change in A's reference date (noted above) may change numerical results.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor variances in phrasing (e.g., passive/active forms) and punctuation occur.
        • Practical impact: Generally drafting-level, except where temporal/reference changes noted above which can influence computation and coverage.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear book WDV schedules at the immediately preceding year-end to apply the proportional split; errors in computing B and C or in locating the correct A date will affect first-year depreciation and subsequent tax positions. The clause creates risk around valuation timing and the derivation of "written down value" versus "book written down value" (both defined in the clause), so consistency between accounting records and tax computations is essential.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implicitly requires contemporaneous books of account reflecting book WDV by asset, schedules evidencing the last day of preceding tax year book WDV, documentation of dates assets change business use, and day-count records for apportionment of depreciation per sub-section (5). For capital gains, records supporting the substituted WDV of the qualifying block u/s 74 application are necessary.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 229 prescribes proportional allocation of tax WDV between qualifying and other ships using book WDV proportions as at preceding year-end and creates separate qualifying blocks for depreciation.
      • Assets changing use require proportional transfer of WDV between blocks using the clause's formulas and day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for the year of change.
      • Capital gains on disposals of qualifying assets are charged u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if references were to WDV of the qualifying block computed under sub-section (2).
      • The clause explicitly defines "book written down value" and "written down value" for purposes of computation.
      • Taxpayers must retain precise asset-level book WDV records and date records to apply the formulas and to justify tax computations on audit.

      Full Text:

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax