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
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❯❯
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
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    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 248 "Powers to requisition." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      9 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 248 Powers to requisition.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause/Section 248 deals with powers to requisition assets, books of account, documents or electronic systems that are held in custody by other authorities. It identifies circumstances in which an approving authority may authorise a requisitioning officer to require delivery of such material. The provision affects taxpayers, other enforcement authorities and the income-tax department. Effective date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 248 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) (referred herein as "this Act" where applicable) and cross-references section 247, section 268 and section 489(2) within the same bill. The provision addresses situations where books, documents, electronic media or computer systems - or assets - that may be relevant to proceedings under "this Act" are in the custody of officers or authorities under other laws. It establishes a power for the approving authority to authorise certain tax officers (Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director, Assistant Commissioner or Income-tax Officer) to requisition delivery of those items. The text defines the authorised requisitioning officers by reference to section 489(2).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 248(1) specifies three factual predicates that may give an approving authority reason to believe requisitioning is justified:

      • Clause (a): A person to whom a summons u/s 246(1) or a notice u/s 268(1) was issued to produce books/documents/electronic media/computer systems has omitted or failed to produce them, and those items have been taken into custody by an officer/authority under another law.
      • Clause (b): Books/documents/electronic media/computer systems will be useful or relevant to any proceeding under this Act and persons subject to summons/notice will not or would not produce the material upon its return by an officer/authority that has taken them into custody under another law.
      • Clause (c): Assets taken into custody under another law represent wholly or partly income or property not disclosed for the purposes of this Act by the person from whose possession/control those assets were taken.

      On any of these predicates, the approving authority may authorise the listed tax officers (requisitioning officer) to require the custodian officer/authority to deliver the assets/books/documents/electronic media/computer system to the requisitioning officer.

      Interpretation

      The provision is framed as a power to secure materials in the hands of non-tax authorities where such materials are necessary for tax proceedings. The language signals a legislative intent to enable the tax administration to access evidence or assets that might otherwise be inaccessible due to custody by other state agencies or statutory bodies. The repeated use of "reason to believe" suggests a subjective standard based on information in the approving authority's possession, but the text does not elaborate on the nature or quantum of information required. The provision contemplates cooperation with other authorities by obliging them to deliver material "forthwith" or when they deem it no longer necessary to retain it.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: The text contains no express provisos limiting the power (for example, to preserve ongoing criminal investigations, to require prior consultation, or to impose timelines for return beyond the phrase "forthwith or when ... no longer necessary"). There is no stated priority between the tax authority's requisition and the custodian authority's own statutory duties, nor any mechanism for judicial oversight or appeal within the clause.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A central investigative agency has seized a company's servers during a probe. The income-tax department has issued summons u/s 246(1) for the same servers, but the company failed to produce them. Under clause 248(1)(a), the approving authority may authorise a requisitioning officer to require the investigative agency to hand over the servers. (Fact pattern consistent with the text.)
      • Example 2: A public sector entity holds physical assets seized under a customs or excise law. The tax department has reason to believe the assets represent undisclosed taxable income. Clause 248(1)(c) permits requisitioning of those assets. (Fact pattern consistent with the text.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes sections 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 (and, in the later Act, section 247(4)(b)) to apply "as far as may be" after delivery; thus procedural consequences for seizure, custody, preservation, and return are to be followed. The provision also cross-refers to section 489(2) for the definition of "requisitioning officer". There is no discussion within the clause of interaction with the statutory mandates of the custodian authorities or with judicial process in matters such as warrants, trial confidentiality or state security. Any further interplay with rules, notifications, or circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Terminology for electronic evidence: Document 1 (Section 248, Income-tax Act, 2025) uses the phrase "any information in electronic form or on a computer system". Document 2 (Clause 248, Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) uses "any information stored in an electronic media or a computer systems" (with minor grammatical plurality differences).
        • Practical impact: The updated wording in Document 1 ("in electronic form or on a computer system") is broader and more modern in expression; it may reduce ambiguity about the medium (not restricted to "media") and better encompass cloud-based or ephemeral electronic forms. The change is primarily terminological and clarificatory.
      • References to other statutory provisions: Document 1 expressly cross-references summons u/s 131(1) or notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in clause (a), in addition to summons u/s 246(1) or notice u/s 268(1) of "this Act". Document 2 refers only to summons u/s 246(1) or notice u/s 268(1) (i.e., within the Bill) in clause (a).
        • Practical impact: The inclusion in Document 1 of the established Income-tax Act, 1961 provisions (sections 131(1) and 142(1)) extends express reach to documents summoned under the older statute and clarifies interplay between the two enactments. This reduces potential lacunae where documents taken under the 1961 Act might otherwise be outside requisition scope.
      • Application of other sections upon delivery: Document 1 provides that, once delivered, the provisions of sections 247(4)(b), 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 apply with substitution of "the requisitioning officer" for "the authorised officer". Document 2 applies sections 247(7) to (11), 250 and 251 only (it omits explicit application of section 247(4)(b)).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of section 247(4)(b) in Document 1 potentially brings additional procedural safeguards or modalities (as contained in that specific sub-provision) into play when material is requisitioned. Omitting it in the older Bill could have resulted in a narrower procedural framework; the updated provision appears to broaden the set of operative rules after delivery.
      • Phrasing and punctuation differences: Minor grammatical and syntactical differences (e.g., "herein and in section 489(2) referred to as the requisitioning officer" in Document 1 versus "hereinafter in this section and in section 489(2) referred to as the requisitioning officer" in Document 2).
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting polish; no substantive legal effect discernible from the text alone.
      • Scope words referring to custody under other laws: Both texts refer to "taken into custody by any officer or authority under any other law for the time being in force" (Document 1) and "under any other law in force" (Document 2).
        • Practical impact: Same substantive reach; Document 1's phrase is marginally more standardised. No material change in effect.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The provision creates a pathway for the tax administration to obtain evidence and assets held by other agencies. Stakeholders facing summons u/ss 246(1) or 268(1) should be aware that failure to produce material may lead to requisition from custody elsewhere. Custodian authorities must consider the requisition power when balancing retention for their own prosecutions or investigations.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the provision's focus on electronic media and computer systems, preservation of chain-of-custody records, forensic imaging, and logs of access and transfer will be critical once material is requisitioned. The text suggests that post-delivery, procedural sections apply as if the material had been seized u/s 247, implying evidentiary and custody procedures must be observed.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 248 empowers the approving authority to authorise requisitioning officers to obtain assets or materials held by other authorities where such material is relevant or persons fail to comply with tax summons/notices.
      • The clause covers books, documents, electronic media and computer systems, and assets that may represent undisclosed income or property.
      • Upon delivery, specified procedural sections (247(7)-(11), 250, 251, and in updated text 247(4)(b)) apply as if the material were seized u/s 247, with "requisitioning officer" substituted for "authorised officer".
      • The Bill (old version) omitted an explicit cross-reference to summons/notices u/ss 131(1) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the later Act rectifies that omission, clarifying reach to materials gathered under the 1961 Act.
      • The provision contains no express safeguards regarding conflicts with other agencies' investigations, timelines for return beyond "forthwith" or "no longer necessary", or any judicial review mechanism within the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 248 Powers to requisition.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax