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 231 "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." 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 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." It prescribes the procedure, timelines and consequences for a qualifying company to opt into or exit the tonnage tax regime for shipping companies. The provision primarily affects shipping companies that qualify for the tonnage tax scheme, Units of an International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) that have claimed section 147 deductions, and tax administrators (Joint Commissioners). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 231 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) in the Part dealing with "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies." The clause governs (i) the mode of application to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, (ii) the timeframe for application, (iii) administrative processing by the Joint Commissioner, (iv) duration and renewal of the option, and (v) circumstances under which the option ceases and consequential computation of profits. The text does not provide standalone definitions; terms such as "qualifying company," "tonnage tax scheme," "tax year," or references to sections 232, 234 and 147 are used without definition in this clause. Any definitional clarification is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 231 sets out the following regime elements:

      • Method of opting: A qualifying company may opt for the tonnage tax scheme by making an application to the Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction over the company, "in the form and manner, as prescribed" (sub-section (1)).
      • Time for initial application: Application must be made within three months of incorporation or within three months of the date the company becomes a qualifying company for the first time (sub-section (2)).
      • IFSC unit-specific rule: A Unit of an International Financial Services Centre that has availed deduction u/s 147 may apply within three months from the date on which such deduction ceases (sub-section (3)).
      • Administrative processing: On receipt of an application, the Joint Commissioner may call for information/documents, and after satisfying eligibility shall pass a written order either approving or refusing the option; a copy of the order is to be sent to the applicant (sub-section (4)).
      • Opportunity to be heard: No refusal under sub-section (4)(b) shall be passed without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard (sub-section (5)).
      • Time limit for decision: Every order under sub-section (4) must be passed before expiry of three months from the end of the quarter in which the application was received (sub-section (6)).
      • Commencement of applicability: Where approval is granted, the provisions of this Part shall apply from the tax year in which the option is exercised (sub-section (7)).
      • Duration: An approved option remains in force for ten years from the date it is exercised and shall be taken into account from the tax year in which it is exercised (sub-section (8)).
      • Ceasing events: The option ceases from the tax year in which any of the following occurs: (a) the company ceases to be a qualifying company; (b) default in complying with provisions contained in section 232(1) to (20); (c) exclusion u/s 234; (d) company furnishes to the Assessing Officer a written declaration that the provisions of this Part may not be made applicable to it. Upon cessation, profits and gains from operating qualifying ships shall be computed as per other provisions of the Act (sub-section (9)).
      • Renewal window: An approved option may be renewed within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceases to have effect (sub-section (10)).
      • Application of procedural provisions to renewals: The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal of the option in the same manner as they apply in relation to the approval of the option (sub-section (11)).
      • Prohibition on re-entry for certain companies: A qualifying company which (a) on its own opts out; or (b) defaults in complying with sections 232(1)-(20); or (c) whose option has been excluded under an order made u/s 234(4), shall not be eligible to opt for the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from the date of opting out, default or order (sub-section (12)).

      Interpretation

      The clause provides a procedural and temporal framework for entry into and exit from the tonnage tax regime. The requirement of filing an application "in the form and manner, as prescribed" signals delegated rulemaking for formats and procedural particulars. The provision makes eligibility determinations administrative (Joint Commissioner) and subject to procedural fairness (opportunity to be heard). The statutory language establishes fixed windows for initial election (three months) and for renewal (within one year from end of tax year in which option ceased). The ten-year minimum period for the option's operation once exercised is expressly stated. Legislative intent as expressed: to create a structured, time-bound mechanism for administering the tonnage tax option and to restrict re-entry after voluntary exit, default or exclusion. No broader policy rationale or legislative history is stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      There are no express provisos beyond the listed ceasing events under sub-section (9) and the ten-year bar to re-entry under sub-section (12). The clause does not state any exemptions, transitional arrangements or special treatments other than the IFSC unit rule in sub-section (3). Any additional exceptions or carve-outs are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (initial election): A qualifying company incorporated on 1 January may apply to opt for the tonnage tax scheme within three months of incorporation-i.e., by 31 March of the same year-by submitting the prescribed application to the Joint Commissioner. (This is a direct reading of sub-section (2).)
      • Example 2 (renewal): If a company's approved option ceases with the tax year ending 31 March 2030, it may seek renewal within one year from 31 March 2030, i.e., by 31 March 2031, with the renewal application processed under sub-sections (1)-(10). (Direct application of sub-section (10) and (11).)
      • Example 3 (ten-year bar): A company that voluntarily opts out on 1 April 2025 will not be eligible to opt back into the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from that date-i.e., until 2 April 2035 (sub-section (12)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-refers to sections 147, 232 and 234. It makes the tonnage tax option contingent on compliance with section 232 provisions and subject to exclusion u/s 234; the IFSC drafting ties the exercise of the option to the cessation of section 147 deduction. Specific rules, notifications or forms are to be prescribed (delegated legislation). No rules, notifications or circulars are reproduced in the clause; any detailed procedural provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must monitor timelines closely-three-month window for initial election and one-year window for renewal. Failure to comply with sections 232(1)-(20) triggers cessation and activates a ten-year bar on re-entry. Administrative decisions are time-limited (decision within three months from quarter-end), but applicants must be prepared to produce supporting documents on request. The clause imposes a procedural bar for re-entry after exit, which is a significant compliance consequence.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Companies should retain incorporation records, documents evidencing qualifying-company status, records concerning section 147 deductions for IFSC units, and evidence of compliance with section 232 requirements for the entire ten-year duration. Copies of all applications, communications and the Joint Commissioner's order should be maintained to evidence the dates of exercise, cessation and any renewals.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause prescribes a formal, time-bound application mechanism to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, administered by the Joint Commissioner.
      • Initial election must be made within three months of incorporation or first qualification; IFSC units have a similar three-month window tied to cessation of section 147 deduction.
      • Approval or refusal must be communicated in writing, and refusal requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard; decisions must be made within a statutorily prescribed period (three months from quarter-end).
      • An approved option runs for ten years from exercise and applies from the tax year of election; renewal is possible within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceased.
      • Cessation events are enumerated (loss of qualification, default u/s 232, exclusion u/s 234, or a written declaration withdrawing applicability), and cessation leads to computation under other Act provisions.
      • Voluntary opt-out, default, or exclusion triggers a ten-year ineligibility period to opt into the tonnage scheme again.
      • Details on prescribed forms, definitions of "qualifying company" and related interpretive guidance are Not stated in the document and remain subject to secondary rules or further statutory text.

      Differences between Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Two drafting differences are apparent from the provided texts:

      • Reference to sub-sections in provision on renewals: In the Bill (Clause 231, Old Version) sub-section (11) provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." whereas the enacted Section 231 in the Income-tax Act, 2025 provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (9) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." (i.e., the Act excludes sub-section (10) from the list).
        • Practical impact: This narrowing in the enacted text removes sub-section (10) (the explicit renewal window provision) from the list of provisions that apply "in the same manner" when processing renewals. The practical effect is that the renewal procedure is to be governed by the substantive procedural and eligibility provisions (1)-(9) but not by sub-section (10) itself, which could be interpreted to avoid circular application of the renewal-window provision to renewals. The Bill's version would have expressly made the renewal-window provision part of the procedural package that governs renewals; the Act's change appears to isolate the renewal window (sub-section (10)) as a standalone rule rather than a rule that is to be reapplied by reference. The document does not explicate legislative intent; further interpretation is Not stated in the document.
      • Minor drafting variance: Sub-section (1) in the Bill says "in the form and manner, as prescribed," while the Act version uses "in the form and manner, as may be prescribed." Practical impact: This is a marginal drafting or stylistic change with no obvious substantive difference in the obligation to follow prescribed forms and manners; the document does not state any intended change in delegated power.

      Full Text:

      Section 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax