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 292 "Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      10 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 292 Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 292 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out a special procedure for assessment in cases of search or requisition, providing for block period assessment and abatement of parallel assessment proceedings. It matters to taxpayers subject to search or requisition, the income-tax department and practitioners handling search-assessment litigation. Effective date: "on or after the commencement of this Act" (as stated).

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 292 is placed in Part B entitled "Special procedure for assessment of search cases" of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It governs assessment of "income pertaining to the block period" where a search is initiated or requisition made. The clause interacts with provisions on references to the Board u/s 166 and cross-references section 293 (for computation/definition of block period income) and section 192 (for the tax rate to be applied). The Bill does not set forth definitions within Clause 292; any definitions of "block period," "search," "requisition," or "undisclosed income" are not stated in the clause itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 292(1) commands that irrespective of other provisions of the Act, where a search is initiated or requisition made on or after commencement, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total income of the block period as per this Chapter. The compulsion is comprehensive ("irrespective of any other provision"), indicating a special, paramount assessment route for search cases. Clause 292(6) provides that income other than undisclosed income of the tax year in which the last authorisation for search is executed should be assessed separately under other provisions of the Act. Clause 292(7) prescribes charging tax on the "total income pertaining to the block period" at the rate specified in section 192, irrespective of the tax year(s) to which such income pertains.

      Interpretation

      The text suggests legislative intent to centralise assessment dimensions arising out of searches into a block assessment calendar, to avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings for the same block-period income. The non-obstante language in clause (1) and (2) indicates a deliberate statutory priority to the Chapter's procedures over ordinary year-wise assessments for years within the block period. Clause (5)'s revival mechanism indicates an intent to preserve the department's recourse if a block assessment is annulled - abated proceedings are capable of revival upon annulment of the Chapter's proceedings. Overall, the clause reflects an intent to provide a distinct, consolidated regime for search-related assessments, to streamline assessment and to protect revenue via revival mechanisms.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 292(4) carves out cases where multiple searches/requisitions occur: if a subsequent search/requisition requires assessment under the Chapter, any pending assessment under the Chapter shall be completed first; then assessment for the subsequent search shall follow; if the remaining period for the subsequent assessment is less than three months, the period is to be extended to three months from the end of the month in which the earlier assessment was completed. This is a procedural proviso ensuring adequate time for downstream assessments. No other provisos (such as thresholds or exemptions) appear in the clause.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A search is initiated on 1 April 2025 covering a block period comprising financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24. Clause 292(1) requires the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the total income of that block period under the Chapter. Year-wise assessments pending for those years would abate under clause (2).
      • Example 2: If a notice for assessment under ordinary provisions was issued for a tax year within the block period after the date of search but before the order under the Chapter is made, clause (2) provides that such proceedings shall abate. Clause (5) contemplates revival if the Chapter's proceeding is later annulled in appeal.

      Interplay

      Clause 292 cross-refers to section 166 (references to the Board), section 293 (computation/definition of block period income) and section 192 (tax rate). It establishes that proceedings under other provisions of the Act for years in the block period abate and are deemed to have abated. Clause 6 preserves separate assessment of non-undisclosed income of the year of last search authorisation under general provisions. Clause 5 allows revival of abated proceedings should Chapter proceedings be annulled, indicating procedural interplay with appellate processes. The clause does not mention rules, forms, or timelines beyond the three-month extension in clause (4)(c).

      Differences between (Document 1) Section 292 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and (Document 2) Clause 292 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Title / Description: Document 1 is presented as "Section 292" of the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025 (heading: "Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search"). Document 2 is the "Clause 292" from the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (heading: "Assessment of income pertaining to the block period").
        • Practical impact: The enacted version uses the phrase "total undisclosed income" whereas the Bill used "total income" (or "total income pertaining to the block period" in sub-clause (7)). This narrows the focus in the enacted Act to undisclosed income, which has implications for scope of taxation and assessment - assessments under the enacted provision are directed at undisclosed income, not all income of the block period.
      • Reference to Parts/Chapters: The Bill (Document 2) repeatedly refers to "this Chapter." The enacted Section (Document 1) refers to "this Part."
        • Practical impact: Terminology change may reflect structural changes in the statute; substantively this is a drafting/organizational change rather than a change in substantive operation, but it may affect cross-references elsewhere in the Act.
      • Substantive Wording - Clause (1): Bill: "the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total income of the block period as per this Chapter." Enacted: "the Assessing Officer shall proceed to assess or reassess the total undisclosed income of the block period as per provisions of this Part."
        • Practical impact: As above, enacted text confines assessment to undisclosed income rather than "total income," narrowing taxable base within the block assessment procedure.
      • Sub-clause (2)(b) in Enacted vs single (2) in Bill: The Bill has a single sub-section (2) stating abatement of pending proceedings. The enacted Section expands and divides subsection (2) into (2)(a) and (2)(b), and adds specific language about notices issued during the search-to-order period and abatement deemed on date of issue of such notice.
        • Practical impact: Enacted text gives more granular treatment to proceedings for tax years in the block period where notices were issued during the search window; it clarifies that such proceedings abate and are deemed to have abated on the date of issue of the notice. This may affect calculation of limitation or procedural rights when notices are issued during the pendency of a search-related assessment.
      • Sub-clause (3): Both documents have a provision about references u/s 166(1) or orders u/s 166(6) abating; the enacted version expressly states the reference/order along with proceedings shall abate "and shall be deemed to have abated on the date referred to in sub-section (2)." Bill says they "shall abate on the date referred to in sub-section (2)."
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting parity; enacted version echoes the deeming language used elsewhere.
      • Sub-clause numbering and (5) scope: Bill's clause (5) provides revival where any proceeding "initiated or completed under this Chapter has been annulled." Enacted clause (5) limits the overriding saving to "Irrespective of anything contained in this part or section 286," and links annulment of a proceeding initiated under this part or any order of assessment/reassessment made u/s 294(1)(c) with revival of abated proceedings.
        • Practical impact: Enacted text narrows the cross-over by specifically tying revival to annulment of assessment or order under specific section 294(1)(c) and by adding reference to section 286 and the Part; it also clarifies the administrative step (revival effective on receipt by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner). This changes procedural mechanics and the authority for revival.
      • Sub-clause (7) differences - cross-reference and terminology: Bill: "The total income pertaining to the block period, as referred to in section 293(5) shall be charged to tax at the rate specified in section 192." Enacted: "The total undisclosed income relating to the block period, as referred to in section 293(7) shall be charged to tax at the rate specified in section 192 as income of the block period."
        • Practical impact: Enacted text both changes the cross-reference (s.293(7) vs s.293(5)) and substitutes "total undisclosed income" for "total income," and expressly states it is "as income of the block period." This aligns with the enacted focus on undisclosed income and may alter rate application depending on how section 293 and section 192 are structured in the final Act. Cross-reference changes could affect interpretive linkages with section 293.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor differences in wording (e.g., "Irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" in the Bill vs "Irrespective of anything contained in this part or section 286" in enacted text).
        • Practical impact: Enacted limitation to "this part or section 286" could restrict the broadness of non-obstante clause compared to the Bill's broader sweep; this may change how other provisions operate vis-`a-vis block assessment provisions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers carrying on activity subject to a search should expect consolidated block assessment procedures and likely abatement of concurrent year-wise assessments. There is an increased risk of comprehensive assessment of all block period income under the Chapter regime rather than piecemeal year-wise scrutiny.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause implies the need to preserve documentation relevant to the entire block period; the statutory abatement of year-wise proceedings means evidence must support positions across years. While the clause does not prescribe specific records, the practical consequence is wide-ranging documentary preservation to defend aggregate assessments.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill centralises assessment for search/requisition cases into a block assessment procedure overriding ordinary year-wise assessments.
      • Pending assessments for tax years within the block period abate upon initiation of search or requisition.
      • Multiple searches trigger a sequential completion rule; time for subsequent assessments is extended to a minimum three months if necessary.
      • Abated proceedings may revive if the Chapter's proceedings are annulled on appeal or other legal proceedings.
      • Income other than undisclosed income for the year of last authorisation is to be assessed separately under ordinary provisions.
      • Tax on block period income is to be charged at the rate in section 192, irrespective of year-wise incidence.
      • Clause is drafted to prioritise department's consolidated assessment approach; taxpayers should plan comprehensive record retention for the block period.

      Full Text:

      Section 292 Assessment of total undisclosed income as a result of search.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax