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 282 "Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281." 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 282 Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These texts reproduce Clause/Section 282 of the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025, setting time limits for issuance of notices u/ss 280 and 281 (notices and show-cause notices in cases of income escaping assessment). The provisions delineate outer limits (four years; up to six years in specified circumstances) and a one-year minimum waiting period. The rule affects taxpayers, assessing officers and the Department; effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: references within the text are to sections 280 and 281 of the same enactment (Procedure for assessment). The provision governs temporal jurisdiction to issue notices where income is alleged to have escaped assessment. Definitions: the text does not supply definitions (for example, of "relevant tax year", "books of account", "other documents", "income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment" or "Assessing Officer"). Not stated in the document. Scope: applies to notices u/ss 280 (notice to assess) and 281 (notice to show cause) for the relevant tax year; sets both outer and inner temporal cut-offs and an exception where certain evidentiary thresholds are met or information indicates escaped income likely aggregating to fifty lakh rupees or more.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause/Section 282 provides a three-part temporal scheme.

      • Clause (1) - Notices u/s 280 (presumably a notice initiating proceedings for assessment of escaped income): barred after four years and three months from the end of the relevant tax year, unless a narrower exception in (1)(b) applies. A secondary window permits issuance between four years and three months and six years and three months only where the Assessing Officer possesses books of account or other documents/evidence related to an asset, expenditure, transaction or entry which shows that income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.
      • Clause (2) - Notices u/s 281 (notice to show cause): barred if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant tax year, unless the case falls under (2)(b). An extended window up to six years is allowed where, as per information with the Assessing Officer, the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.
      • Clause (3) - A minimum waiting period: no notice u/s 280 or 281 shall be issued within one year from the end of any tax year.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The provision seeks to balance finality for taxpayers with the Department's interest in pursuing substantial cases of escaped income. The four-year rule (and four-year rule with three months for section 280) provides a general limitation period; the extension to six years is conditional on the presence of evidence or information indicating significant escaped income (threshold: fifty lakh rupees). The separate one-year bar suggests a cooling-off or administrative window during which notices cannot be issued, possibly to allow other processes (filing, assessment) to conclude; however, the document does not explain the policy reasons. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The text contains two express exceptions/provisos:

      • For section 280 - the extension up to six years applies only where the Assessing Officer "has in his possession" (in the Act text) books of account or other documents or evidence related to an asset/expenditure/transaction/entry showing escaped income likely amounting to Rs. 50,00,000 or more.
      • For section 281 - the extension up to six years applies where, "as per the information with the Assessing Officer", the escaped income amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000 or more. The text does not require possession of the documents; it requires information indicating the quantum.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A tax year ending 31 March 2025. Under clause (2)(a), a notice u/s 281 cannot be issued after 31 March 2029 (four years). However, if on 1 April 2028 the Assessing Officer has information that escaped income of Rs. 60 lakh is likely, a notice can still be issued up to 31 March 2031 (six years). These dates are illustrative arithmetic consistent with the text; the document does not provide calendar examples. Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: For section 280, the four years and three months cut-off: for the same year ending 31 March 2025, the ordinary bar would apply after 30 June 2029; but between 1 July 2029 and 30 June 2031 a notice may be issued only if the AO has in his possession books/documents showing escaped income of at least Rs. 50 lakh. The document does not define the nature of acceptable documents. Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: the text refers to sections 280 and 281. The clause differentiates tests for extension between those two sections: possession of documentary evidence is expressly required for section 280 extension, whereas for section 281 an information-based standard suffices. The provision does not reference any Rules, Notifications or Circulars. Not stated in the document: any linkage to penalty provisions, prosecution timelines, or assessment/revision provisions; nor any transitional or retrospective application rules.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should note that general finality arises at four years (or four years and three months for section 280), but the Department can reopen or issue notices up to six years where the threshold of Rs. 50 lakh is met. The divergence in the evidentiary standard between section 280 and 281 is material: possession of documentary evidence is required for section 280; for section 281, information in the AO's possession may suffice. This affects where and when taxpayers must preserve books and documents and when to expect notices.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the statutory reliance on "books of account or other documents or evidence" (for section 280) and "information with the Assessing Officer" (for section 281), stakeholders should preserve contemporaneous records that establish the nature, quantum and timing of assets, expenditures and transactions. The text, however, does not specify formats, retention periods beyond the statutory timelines, or proof standards for "possession" or "information". Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause/Section 282 establishes a general four-year limitation for notices u/ss 280 and 281, with differing technical adjustments.
      • Section 280 is subject to a four-years-and-three-months outer limit; extension up to six years and three months requires the AO to have "in his possession" books/documents/evidence showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakh or more.
      • Section 281 has a four-year cut-off; extension up to six years is permissible where, per the information with the AO, escaped income is or is likely to be Rs. 50 lakh or more.
      • A mandatory minimum: no notice u/s 280 or 281 can be issued within one year from the end of any tax year.
      • The text does not define key terms, explain thresholds' rationale, describe evidentiary standards, or state effective date or transitional rules. Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 282 (Bill, Old Version)Section 282 (Income-tax Act, 2025)Practical Impact
      Form/SourcePresented as Clause 282 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version); accompanied by a brief explanatory line: "Clause 282 of the Bill provides for time limit for notices..."Presented as Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (enacted text).Substantive wording largely identical; enactment confirms legislative finality. The explanatory note in the Bill is removed in the Act; no substantive legal effect.
      Phrasing regarding AO's materials (section 280)States the AO "has books of account or other documents or evidence related to any asset..."States the AO "has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence related to any asset..."The Act adds "in his possession", which emphasises physical or constructive control of documents by the AO at the time of issuing the notice. This could affect whether third-party information or mere leads suffice for a section 280 extension; the Act language arguably tightens the requirement to actual possession, potentially raising a procedural threshold for the Department.
      Minor temporal wordingUses same temporal markers (four years; four years and three months; up to six years).Same.No practical change.
      Explanatory sentenceIncludes a one-line explanatory sentence summarising purpose.Does not include that explanatory sentence, but otherwise identical.Cosmetic only; no change in operative law.

      Concluding Observations

      The enacted Section 282 and the Bill's Clause 282 are substantively congruent. The main drafting divergence is the Act's insertion of "in his possession" for the section 280 exception; this may be significant in practice as it highlights an evidentiary/possession requirement for the extended six-year window u/s 280. Otherwise, the provision sets a two-tier limitation approach (general four-year rule; extendable to six years in substantial cases of escaped income) and a one-year minimum bar, with a monetary threshold of fifty lakh rupees. The text omits definitions, evidentiary standards, procedural rules for proving "possession" or "information", effective date, and transitional provisions. Not stated in the document.


      Full Text:

      Section 282 Time limit for notices u/ss 280 and 281.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax