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 253 "Powers of survey." 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 253 Powers of survey.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), setting out powers of survey exercisable by income-tax authorities. It matters because it defines entry, inspection, assistance, impounding and related procedural limits affecting taxpayers, assessing authorities and compliance officers. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business/profession/charitable activities, their employees and custodians of records; the issuing or effective date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, titled "Powers of survey." Coverage: authorises an income-tax authority to enter places where business/profession/charitable activity is carried on (including non-principal places and any place stated to contain books, cash, stock, valuables or computer systems). The clause addresses entry conditions, timing (business hours or after sunrise/before sunset), powers on entry (inspection, technical assistance, verification of assets/stock, recording statements on oath), impounding/retention of documents, inventory of assets, and enforcement powers (reference to section 246(1)). Definitions provided: "income-tax authority" with an enumerated list and inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax for specified sub-sections. The clause describes special entry for verifying TDS/TCS under Chapter XIX-B and permits certain restricted actions in those instances. It does not provide an effective date in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision authorises entry into premises where business/profession/charitable activities are carried on, within the assigned area or where the authority exercises jurisdiction, or where authorised by another income-tax authority. Upon entry the inspecting authority may require persons present to provide technical/other assistance (including access codes) to inspect books, documents, computer systems, electronic media or virtual digital space; to provide facilities to check or verify assets/stock; and to furnish information relevant to any proceeding under the Act. Entry timing is constrained to business hours for business places, and to after sunrise/before sunset for other places. For verification of TDS/TCS (Chapter XIX-B), the authority may enter during daylight and require access to books, documents, electronic media, computer systems and virtual digital space. Powers on entry include marking identification on documents, making extracts or copies from electronic media/computer systems, recording statements on oath, impounding and retaining documents (with reasons) for specified periods, and making inventories of assets/stock.

      Interpretation

      The Bill reflects an intent to modernise survey powers to expressly reach electronic media and virtual digital space, and to require technical assistance including access codes. The text indicates a legislative purpose to equip tax authorities to access digital records and remote storage when verifying compliance. The presence of timing restrictions and a requirement to record reasons for impounding indicates an intent to balance intrusive powers with procedural safeguards. Reference to section 246(1) for enforcement suggests use of pre-existing coercive mechanisms rather than creation of new penal sanctions within the clause.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The principal limitations are temporal (business hours or daylight), limitation on actions when entering for Chapter XIX-B verification (the authority acting under sub-section (4) shall only undertake actions referred under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b)), and requirement to record reasons before impounding. There is also an implicit limitation that removal of assets/stock from the premises is prohibited ("shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place... any asset or stock" - Not stated in the document whether this prohibition is absolute or subject to any exception beyond what's written) .

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A shop open for business is visited during business hours; the authority can require staff to provide access to on-premises accounting software and extract relevant records, mark documents, and, after recording reasons, impound ledger printouts for up to fifteen days.
      • Example 2: For a charitable trust's event, after the function the authority may require the organiser to furnish information regarding expenditure and record statements on oath for use in subsequent proceedings.
      • Example 3: In a TDS verification at a corporate office, the authority may require access to electronic media and virtual digital space to confirm deductions/collections, but may only carry out marking/copying of documents and recording of statements during that entry.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes Chapter XIX-B (TDS/TCS) and section 246(1) (for enforcement), indicating interplay with existing assessment and enforcement provisions. There is no textual reference to subordinate rules, guidelines, data-protection statutes, or procedural safeguards beyond the recording of reasons and approval requirements for impounding beyond fifteen days. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to evidence law, privacy law, or specific Board instructions governing access to virtual digital spaces.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope of electronic material: The Bill (Document 2, "Old Version") expressly includes "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space" and, in another sub-clause, "electronic media ... or virtual digital space." The Act version (Document 1, Section 253) uses narrower phrasing: "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's language is broader and expressly captures cloud/virtual data and ancillary material connected with computer systems; the Act text reduces express reach to "information in electronic form or on a computer system," which may narrow or at least create interpretive questions about whether remote/virtual storage and ancillary system material fall within survey powers.
      • Assistance required on entry: Both versions require provision of "necessary technical and other assistance (including access code)." The Bill's clause (1)(i) explicitly refers to "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space," while the Act omits the phrase "any other material connected ... including virtual digital space" and refers instead to "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's wording gives clearer authority to demand assistance for inspecting connected materials and virtual spaces; the Act may be read as focused on retrievable information rather than the broader system context.
      • Inspection powers under Chapter XIX-B verification (sub-section (4)): The Bill expressly grants access to "access to electronic media or computer system, or virtual digital space" for verifying TDS/TCS compliance. The Act restricts the language to "books of account or other documents, or information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: Enforcement relating to TDS/TCS may have broader reach under the Bill wording; the Act's phrasing may require interpretive expansion to cover virtual digital spaces.
      • Impounding and retention wording: The Bill states the authority may "impound and retain in custody any books of account or other documents inspected by it, after recording reasons for doing so, for a period-(i) of fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with prior approval." The Act states the authority may "impound after recording reasons for doing so, any books of account or other documents, or any computer system inspected by it, and retain it for a period-(i) up to fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with the prior approval."
        • Practical impact: The Act explicitly adds "any computer system" to the list that may be impounded and clarifies retention periods as "up to fifteen days" (versus Bill's "of fifteen days"), arguably the same practical effect but with different drafting emphasis on computer systems in the Act.
      • Restriction on actions under sub-section (4): Both texts state that an income-tax authority acting under sub-section (4) shall undertake only specified actions. The Act (Document 1, sub-section (6)) explicitly states those are the actions under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b). The Bill has parallel wording but formatting differs.
        • Practical impact: Substantively similar; Act wording makes explicit which actions are permissible during TDS/TCS verification entry.
      • Definition of "proceeding": The Act (Document 1, sub-section (11)(B)) contains an express definition of "proceeding" (covering pending, completed, and subsequently commenced proceedings in respect of any year). The Bill (Document 2) does not include that definition.
        • Practical impact: The Act's explicit definition broadens clarity that survey material can be used for multiple stages of assessment or later proceedings; the Bill leaves this potentially ambiguous.
      • Inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax: Both versions include Inspector of Income-tax for limited purposes, though the Act sets out the inclusion within sub-clause labelling (11)(A)/(B) and specifies subordinate relationship "as specified by the Board."
        • Practical impact: Largely administrative/drafting differences; both permit limited use of Inspectors for designated actions.
      • Other drafting and structural differences: Minor differences in clause sequencing and phrasing (e.g., use of "exclusive of holidays," "up to" vs "of"), and the Act's explicit prohibition on removal of assets (sub-section (7)) mirrors the Bill but with slightly different placement.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive/drafting; the Act is marginally more detailed in certain definitions (notably "proceeding") and in expressly including computer systems for impoundment, while the Bill more explicitly referenced virtual digital space and electronic media.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should be prepared to provide technical assistance and access codes on survey entry; failure or evasion exposes them to enforcement u/s 246(1). The express reach to electronic media and virtual digital space increases exposure of cloud-stored records during surveys.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should maintain accessible copies of records, documented chain of custody for electronic records, and contemporaneous explanations of transactions likely to be scrutinised. Given the power to mark and copy, maintaining integrity and availability of archives and backups is important. Not stated in the document: retention periods or specific standards for electronic evidence preservation beyond usual record-keeping obligations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 253 authorises robust survey powers, including entry, technical access (including access codes), marking, copying and impounding of records.
      • The Bill explicitly targets electronic media and virtual digital space, reflecting attention to digital records; it also permits access for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Temporal limits apply: business-hours or daylight entries and distinct restrictions when entry is for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Impounding requires reasons to be recorded; retention beyond fifteen days needs prior approval.
      • Non-compliance with survey requisitions triggers enforcement powers u/s 246(1).
      • The Bill lists authorised officers and permits Inspectors of Income-tax to act for limited purposes; however, some procedural and privacy safeguards are not detailed in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 253 Powers of survey.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax