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 259 "Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority." 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 259 Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document compares Section 259 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as enacted) with Clause 259 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both texts address the power of a prescribed income-tax authority to call for information for verification purposes. The enacted Section 259 adds an express definitional link for the term "proceeding." Affected parties include taxpayers and other persons from whom the prescribed authority may require information, and the tax department in its investigatory and verification functions. Effective dates are Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: the texts are presented as Clause/Section 259 within instrument(s) captioned Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version) and Income-tax Act, 2025 respectively. Both entries concern powers of "prescribed income-tax authority" to call for information and reference a "scheme notified u/s 260." Definitions or further explanations contained in the texts are limited: the enacted Section 259(3) provides that "proceeding" has the meaning assigned in section 253; other definitional material is Not stated in the document. The scope in both texts is focused on verification of information "in the possession of the prescribed income-tax authority" and furnishing of information "as may be useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act."

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both the Bill (old version) and the enacted Section provide three core elements (two in the Bill text):

      • Power to issue notice: The prescribed income-tax authority may issue a notice to any person requiring the furnishing of information.
      • Purpose limited to verification: The notice power is framed "for the purposes of verification of information" in the authority's possession and is limited to information "useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act."
      • Form, manner and time: The information may be required "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice."
      • Processing under scheme: Both texts permit the prescribed authority to "process and utilise such information and document received by him as per the scheme notified u/s 260."
      • Definition of "proceeding": The enacted Section 259 contains subsection (3) stating that "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned in section 253. The Bill (old version) does not include this explicit definitional link.

      Interpretation

      The language confines the notice power to verification functions and to information already "in the possession of the prescribed income-tax authority." The words "as may be useful for, or relevant to" indicate a relevance standard rather than an absolute or unlimited information demand. The specification that compliance is in "such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice" allows the authority procedural flexibility. Provision for processing and utilisation "as per the scheme notified u/s 260" indicates that statutory or delegated scheme rules will govern handling, storage, processing and downstream use; the text itself does not describe the scheme. The enacted insertion of an explicit definitional cross-reference (Section 259(3)) signals legislative intent to anchor the scope of "proceeding" to the definition set out in section 253, thereby reducing interpretive uncertainty about the ambit of proceedings for which information can be called.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express exceptions, provisos or thresholds (for example, limits based on amount, time period, confidentiality safeguards or judicial oversight) are contained in either version of the provision. Any carve-outs, protections or procedural safeguards are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A prescribed income-tax authority holds tax return data and issues a notice u/s 259 requiring a third party to furnish corroborative invoices "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified." This is consistent with the text. Further procedural details about format, electronic submission, or penalties for non-compliance are Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: A notice seeks bank account statements from a taxpayer for verification of entries in the authority's possession. The authority may process and utilise the information under the scheme notified u/s 260. The contents of that scheme are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly refers to section 260 (scheme for processing/utilisation) and-only in the enacted version-section 253 (meaning of "proceeding"). Any further interaction with other statutory provisions, rules, notifications, or judicial precedents is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

      Identified difference:

      • Addition of subsection (3) in the enacted Section 259: The enacted text contains a new subsection (3) stating that "For the purposes of this section, the term "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 253." The Clause 259 (old Bill version) does not include this clause.

      Practical impact of the change:

      • Clarifies scope of "proceeding": By expressly tying "proceeding" to the definition in section 253, the enacted provision reduces ambiguity about which proceedings justify the use of Section 259 notices. This narrows interpretive variance that might have arisen if courts or practitioners sought to define "proceeding" from context or broader administrative notions. The precise content of section 253 is Not stated in the document, so the practical breadth of the narrowing or clarification cannot be further specified here.
      • Predictability and defensibility of notices: The definitional cross-reference allows recipients of notices to assess whether the information requested legitimately relates to a "proceeding" as defined in section 253, which may facilitate more focused challenges or compliance assessments. The Bill's omission would have left room for broader administrative interpretation of "proceeding."
      • Potentially limits overreach: If section 253 defines "proceeding" more narrowly than general administrative enquiries, the insertion may limit the range of inquiries for which notices can be issued u/s 259. Conversely, if section 253 is broad, the insertion merely cements that breadth. The document does not state which is the case.
      • Procedural coherence with related sections: The cross-reference fosters statutory coherence between investigative powers (Section 259) and the definitional framework elsewhere in the Act, aligning interpretation across provisions such as section 260 (scheme) and other investigatory or adjudicatory provisions that rely on the term "proceeding." The specific interactions beyond the textual cross-reference are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Persons receiving notices should verify that the notice relates to an inquiry or "proceeding" as defined in section 253 before furnishing information, since the enacted text makes that definitional link explicit. The document does not provide the definition in section 253, so recipients must consult that provision (Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision contemplates furnishing information "in such form and manner and within such time, as specified in such notice," and permits processing under a scheme in section 260. Entities should therefore maintain records in accessible formats and preserve documentary evidence that may be required. Details on required formats, retention periods or specific compliance modalities are Not stated in the document.
      • Administrative use and safeguards: The authority's ability to "process and utilise" information under a notified scheme indicates that procedural and data-handling rules will be set out elsewhere (section 260). The content of that scheme, including privacy safeguards, access controls or permitted uses, is Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both the Bill (old version) and the enacted Section 259 grant prescribed income-tax authorities the power to issue notices requiring persons to furnish information relevant to verification for enquiries or proceedings under the Act.
      • Both versions permit specification of form, manner and time for compliance and permit processing/utilisation of received information under a scheme notified u/s 260.
      • The primary textual change in the enacted law is the addition of subsection (3), expressly defining "proceeding" by reference to section 253.
      • The addition improves statutory clarity by anchoring the scope of notices to the definition in section 253; the substantive effect depends on the content of section 253 (Not stated in the document).
      • No procedural safeguards, exceptions, timelines, penalties for non-compliance or details of the section 260 scheme are provided in the texts reviewed; these matters are Not stated in the document.
      • Stakeholders should consult section 253 and section 260 to determine the operative meaning of "proceeding" and the processing/utilisation rules; those sections are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 259 Power to call for information by prescribed income-tax authority.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax