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 301 "Interpretation." 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 301 Interpretation

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 301 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Interpretation" within the Chapter on special procedure for assessment of search cases. It supplies definitions and scope for terms such as "block period", "requisition", "requisitioned items", "search", "seized items", "the last of the authorisations" and "undisclosed income". It matters because these definitions frame assessment, seizure and requisition proceedings u/ss 247-248 and related provisions; affected parties include taxpayers subject to search/requisition, authorised officers and the tax department.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 301 is situated in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, under the Chapter dealing with "Special procedure for assessment of search cases". It supplies interpretive definitions to be used "in this Chapter". The clause explicitly references sections 247 and 248 (search and requisition) for the operative processes it supports. The Clause provides definitions that govern temporal scope ("block period"), material objects subject to requisition/seizure ("requisitioned items", "seized items"), process milestones ("the last of the authorisations") and the core fiscal concept used in such proceedings ("undisclosed income").

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 301 provides definitional scope for terms used in the Chapter:

      • "block period": Aggregate of two components-(i) six tax years preceding the tax year in which the search was initiated or any requisition was made; and (ii) the period from 1 April of the tax year in which the search/requisition was made up to the date of execution of the last authorisation for such search/requisition.
      • "requisition": Requisition of books of account, other documents or any assets u/s 248.
      • "requisitioned items": Books of account, other documents or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing requisitioned u/s 248.
      • "search": A search initiated u/s 247.
      • "seized items": Books of account, other documents or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized u/s 247.
      • "the last of the authorisations": Deemed executed-(i) for search: on conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn in relation to any person in whose case the warrant of authorisation has been issued, irrespective of whether any seizure is recorded; (ii) for requisition: on actual receipt of the books of account, documents or assets by the Authorised Officer.
      • "undisclosed income": Two limbs-(i) money, bullion, jewellery, virtual digital asset or other valuable article or thing or any expenditure or any income based on entries in books/documents/transactions representing wholly or partly income or property not disclosed for purposes of the Act in respect of the block period; or (ii) any expense, exemption, deduction or allowance claimed under the Act which is found to be incorrect, in respect of the block period.

      Interpretation

      The Clause employs temporal and material markers to delineate the ambit of "undisclosed income" and the period for which such income will be examined ("block period"). The first limb of "undisclosed income" focuses on tangible and intangible assets (including "virtual digital asset") and entries/transactions that reflect nondisclosure. The second limb separately addresses incorrect fiscal claims-expenses, exemptions, deductions or allowances-claimed under the Act. The inclusion of both tangible assets and accounting entries suggests a dual focus on physical seizure and documentary/book-entry analysis within the block period. The text signals that the last panchnama in relation to any person is determinative for the conclusion of a search, thus providing a concrete procedural milestone for the operation of time-bound rules linked to the block period.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express exceptions or provisos beyond the two-part structure of the "block period" and the two-limbed definition of "undisclosed income" are included within Clause 301. Specific carve-outs, thresholds or exclusions are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A search initiated on 15 December of tax year Y (warrants executed for multiple persons) will have block period component (i) the six tax years preceding Y, and (ii) from 1 April of Y to the date recorded as conclusion in the last panchnama-this determines the period within which alleged undisclosed income is assessed.
      • Example 2: Books of account seized u/s 247 containing entries asserting certain expenses claimed as deductions for the block period could be treated as evidence of "undisclosed income" under limb (g)(i) or as an incorrect deduction under limb (g)(ii), depending on factual findings made during assessment.

      Interplay

      Clause 301 repeatedly cross-references sections 247 and 248 for the operative acts of search and requisition. The Clause also depends on "panchnama" as a procedural record to mark the conclusion of search operations. No other Rules, Notifications or Circulars are mentioned in Clause 301. Any application of this Clause in relation to other provisions of the Bill or the Act is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Clause 301 (Old Version) and Section 301 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Practical Impact

      • Scope marker/heading: The Bill (Clause 301) uses "In this Chapter"; the Act (Section 301) uses "For the purposes of this Part".
        • Practical impact: Terminology shift (Chapter vs Part) is largely stylistic but may reflect reorganisation of the statute; no substantive legal change is indicated in the texts provided.
      • Definitions added/omitted: The Bill contains explicit definitions of "requisitioned items" and "seized items" (books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles seized/requisitioned u/ss 247/248). The Act text omits these two separate definitions.
        • Practical impact: Omitting explicit labels for "seized items" and "requisitioned items" in the Act reduces immediate textual clarity about what the statute contemplates when referencing seized or requisitioned property. Procedure and evidential handling that depend on named categories may require reliance on the general description in other clauses or on rules/guidance; this increases potential interpretive work for assessors and advisers.
      • Placement and labelling of "the last of the authorisations": Both texts contain a provision deeming when "the last of the authorisations" is executed, with identical operative sub-clauses for search (conclusion as recorded in last panchnama) and requisition (actual receipt). The Bill lists this at (f) while the Act lists similar text at (d).
        • Practical impact: No substantive change; re-lettering only affects cross-references in other sections and transitional drafting adjustments.
      • "Undisclosed income" formulation: The Bill sets out "undisclosed income" in a two-part structure (g)(i) and (g)(ii): (i) items/entries/transactions representing undisclosed income; or (ii) any expense/exemption/deduction/allowance claimed under the Act which is found to be incorrect. The Act consolidates the concept under (e), merging the two ideas into one continuous sentence and, per the appended note, corrects a typographical error ("or or any" corrected to "or any").
        • Practical impact: Substantively the Act appears to preserve both limbs of the Bill's definition, but the Act's merged wording could affect syntactic clarity and the parsing of whether the second limb is an alternative or a continuation. The corrigenda indicates only a textual correction, not a policy change.
      • Terminology for virtual assets: Both texts expressly include "virtual digital asset" in the list of items capable of constituting undisclosed income.
        • Practical impact: Confirms legislative intent to treat virtual assets on par with traditional valuables in search/requisition contexts.
      • Minor editorial differences: The Bill uses semicolons and clause divisions (a)-(g); the Act uses (a)-(e) with subclauses.
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting-style; may require attention in drafting cross-references and rules.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The Clause identifies a multi-year window ("block period") for investigation of undisclosed income, incorporating both the six preceding tax years and the year-of-search period up to the last authorisation. Taxpayers subject to search/requisition must be cognisant that both physical assets (including VDA) and documentary entries for that combined period are within scope.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Because "requisitioned items" and "seized items" explicitly include books of account and various forms of valuables, maintaining contemporaneous documentation, clear provenance and substantiation of claimed expenses/exemptions for the block period will be essential. The Clause makes the panchnama the operative record for concluding a search; therefore preservation and contestation of panchnama contents may be critical in subsequent proceedings.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 301 defines "block period" as six tax years preceding the tax year of search/requisition plus the part of that tax year up to the last authorisation.
      • Both physical assets (including money, bullion, jewellery and virtual digital assets) and documentary/book entries are captured within "undisclosed income".
      • The Clause separately recognises incorrect claims of expense, exemption, deduction or allowance as constitutive of "undisclosed income".
      • Procedural milestone: the last panchnama (for searches) and actual receipt by Authorised Officer (for requisition) determine the completion of authorisation for temporal calculations.
      • "Requisitioned items" and "seized items" are separately defined to include books of account and valuables, thus clarifying the kinds of materials that can be requisitioned or seized u/ss 247-248.
      • The Clause does not set out exceptions, thresholds, rights of persons from whom items are seized/requisitioned, or detailed procedural safeguards-those are Not stated in the document.
      • References to other legislative instruments, dates of effect, appeals or procedures post-seizure/requisition are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 301 Interpretation

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax