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 308 "Charge of tax in case of oral trust." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      11 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 308 Charge of tax in case of oral trust.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 308 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 308 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 as presented. Both provisions address tax treatment where an "oral trust" is involved and mandate taxation at the maximum marginal rate. The primary change is a shift in the taxed person and wording: the Bill taxed the income of "the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e)"; the enacted section taxes income received by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of any person. Affected parties include trustees, persons appointed under oral trusts, and taxpayers with arrangements characterized as oral trusts. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: both texts invoke the Income-tax enactments for 2025 and cross-reference section 303(3) for the definition of "oral trust". The texts fall under the part described as "Representative assesses-Special cases". The Bill (Old Version) and the enacted Section share the objective of addressing tax charge where arrangements amount to oral trusts, but they differ in whom the charge targets and in the precise triggering language. Any further contextual legislative history, parliamentary debates, policy rationale, or commencement specifics are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Section 308 (enacted) states: Where a trustee receives or is entitled to receive any income on behalf or for the benefit of any person under an oral trust, then, irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act, tax shall be charged on such income at the maximum marginal rate.
      • Clause 308 (Bill, Old Version) provided: The income of the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e) shall be chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate, irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act.
      • Coverage: Both provisions apply to income associated with an "oral trust" as defined in section 303(3). The enacted version attaches charge to income received by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of a person, whereas the Bill version attaches tax to income of the person appointed under an oral trust (per section 303(1)(e)).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles must be inferred solely from the textual change: the enacted provision focuses on taxing income at the point where a trustee receives or becomes entitled to receive income under an oral trust arrangement, imposing the maximum marginal rate "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act". The Bill focused on the appointed person's income. Any broader legislative intent, purposive statements, or notes to the legislation are Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No provisos, exceptions, thresholds, or carve-outs are included in either text. Both are absolute in form-tax at the maximum marginal rate "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act". Any conditional exemptions or mitigating provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Trustee receives rental income from property held under an oral trust for a beneficiary. Under the enacted Section 308, tax is charged on that income at the maximum marginal rate when the trustee receives or is entitled to receive it. (Derived from the text.)
      • Example 2: Person appointed under an oral trust receives distributions that represent their income under the arrangement. Under the Bill (Old Version), that person's income would be chargeable at the maximum marginal rate. (Derived from the text.)
      • Example 3: Differences where trustee retains income and a beneficiary is appointed under the trust: enacted Section 308 targets the trustee's receipt/entitlement, while the Bill targeted the appointed person's income. (Derived from the text.)

      Interplay

      Both provisions expressly reference section 303(3) for the definition of "oral trust". Neither text mentions other specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars. The statute's phrase "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" signals intended precedence over possible conflicting statutory rules (e.g., provisions that ordinarily attribute income to beneficiaries or trustees), but the exact interaction with other sections (for example, sections governing representative assessments, taxation of trusts, or anti-avoidance provisions) is Not stated in the document and would require analysis beyond the text provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The enacted Section 308 shifts the immediate charge to income received by trustees under oral trusts. Trustees must therefore be alert to the possibility of tax at the maximum marginal rate on amounts they receive or are entitled to receive if the arrangement is an oral trust per section 303(3). The Bill version placed the tax charge on the person appointed under an oral trust; the enacted text therefore changes the compliance locus. The documents themselves do not state filing, withholding, or collection procedures-Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Trustees should maintain clear contemporaneous records documenting receipt/entitlement to income, the nature of the trust arrangement (to establish or rebut classification as an oral trust), and any directives regarding benefit recipients, because the enacted section targets income at the trustee level. Specific documentation requirements are Not stated in the document.
      • Tax administration: The absolute phrasing ("irrespective of anything...") indicates limited statutory room for relief under other provisions; the tax department may treat income flowing through oral trust structures as taxable at the highest marginal rate, potentially increasing assessments and enforcement scrutiny. Implementation mechanisms and administrative guidance are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts mandate taxation at the maximum marginal rate for income connected with "oral trusts".
      • The Bill (Old Version) targeted the income of "the person appointed under an oral trust" as per section 303(1)(e); the enacted Section 308 targets income received or receivable by a trustee on behalf of or for the benefit of any person.
      • The enacted provision changes the direct statutory charge from the appointed person to the trustee's receipt/entitlement, shifting compliance focus and potential liability to trustees.
      • Both provisions rely on the definition of "oral trust" in section 303(3); the substantive meaning and scope of that definition are essential but Not stated in the documents.
      • No exceptions, thresholds, procedural details, or commencement date are stated in the documents.
      • The phrase "irrespective of anything contained in any other provision of this Act" signals statutory primacy, but interaction with other sections is Not stated in the document.
      • Practical compliance measures, withholding obligations, and administrative guidance are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 308 (Bill, Old Version)Section 308 (Enacted)
      Person on whom tax is chargedThe income of the person appointed under an oral trust as mentioned in section 303(1)(e) is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate.Where a trustee receives or is entitled to receive any income on behalf or for the benefit of any person under an oral trust, tax shall be charged on such income at the maximum marginal rate.
      Triggering eventImplied charge arises as to the appointed person's income (per appointment u/s 303(1)(e)).Charge arises when a trustee receives or is entitled to receive income under an oral trust.
      Practical compliance locusFocus on the appointed person (possible beneficiary or appointee).Focus on the trustee (who receives or is entitled to receive income).
      Scope wordingSpecific reference to "person appointed under an oral trust ... section 303(1)(e)".Broader phraseology: income "received or is entitled to receive ... on behalf or for the benefit of any person".
      Practical impactTax department could assess the appointed person's income at the highest rate, potentially affecting persons holding appointments in oral arrangements.Trustees may face direct taxation at the maximum marginal rate on receipts/entitlements under oral trusts; may increase administrative burden on trustees and alter structuring/management of trusts to avoid classification as oral trusts.

      Action Points

      • Trustees should review arrangements that may constitute an "oral trust" u/s 303(3) and document the character of their role and receipts.
      • Persons appointed under oral trusts should ascertain whether the enacted provision changes their direct exposure; the text suggests the trustee is now the primary focus for charging the tax.
      • Tax practitioners should monitor for administrative guidance or rules clarifying collection, withholding, assessment, and relief mechanisms since the statutory text provides no procedural detail-Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 308 Charge of tax in case of oral trust.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax