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 332 "Application for registration." 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 332 Application for registration

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) "Application for registration" for registered non-profit organisations. It sets out who may apply, eligibility conditions, time-limits and procedural steps for grant, rejection or cancellation of registration. It matters to non-profit entities seeking tax-status benefits and to tax administration (Principal Commissioner/Commissioner). Effective dates or commencement details: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 332, Part B (Special provisions for registered non-profit organisation), I-Registration. The provision prescribes which entities may apply for registration to claim benefits under the Part, the eligibility conditions, procedural timelines for application and decision, and consequences of delay. Definitions for terms used in the Clause (e.g., "charitable purposes" referencing section 2(23)) are limited to reference; the Clause relies on other statutory definitions. Any broader legislative context or explanatory notes: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Clause applies to specified categories of persons who may apply for registration to claim benefits as a "registered non-profit organisation": (a) public trusts; (b) societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any law in India; (c) companies registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or companies previously registered u/s 25 of the 1956 Act and deemed registered u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013; (d) universities or other educational institutions affiliated or recognised by Government; (e) institutions financed wholly or partly by Government or a local authority; (f) persons listed in specified entries of Schedules III and VII; and (g) other persons notified by the Board.

      Eligibility ingredients (sub-section (2)): (a) constitution/registration/incorporation in India for carrying out one or more charitable purposes as referred to in section 2(23) or one or more public religious purposes, or both; and (b) properties held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public - either wholly for charitable or religious purposes, or partly for such purposes in India if constituted prior to commencement of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Interpretation

      The Clause frames eligibility by reference to existing statutory definitions (section 2(23)) rather than redefining charitable or religious purposes, indicating reliance on established interpretive tests under the Act. The requirement that properties be "held under an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the general public" is a substantive condition: the trust character and public-benefit orientation are explicit statutory prerequisites. The decision-making role is vested in the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, who must make enquiries and call for documents to assess "genuineness of activities" and compliance with other laws "material for the purpose of achieving its objects." Legislative intent beyond these textually expressed aims: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Clause contains temporal and conditional permutations in the Table (sub-section (3)) governing when applications must be made, and the period of validity if registration is granted. Notable exceptions/conditions: provisional registration is available where activities have not commenced (Table Sl. No. 1). Sub-section (4) permits condonation of delay by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner for reasonable cause. Sub-section (5) substitutes a longer validity (ten years instead of five) for certain lower-income applicants (income not exceeding Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding tax years). Liability for tax on accreted income u/s 352 applies where certain late applications are not condoned (sub-section (6)). Specific provisos limiting scope of object modifications (see Table Sl. No. 7) are not present in the Old Version beyond the requirement to notify within 30 days; further nuance: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Newly formed society formed in April seeking registration for tax year starting 1 April: it may apply "at any time during the tax year beginning from which registration is sought"; where activities have not commenced and provisional registration is sought, the Commissioner must decide within three months from end of month of application (Table Sl. No.1).
      • An established trust whose activities have commenced and which has never been registered may apply during the relevant tax year; the Commissioner has six months from end of the quarter in which application is made to pass order; registration, if granted, is valid for five tax years (Table Sl. No.2).
      • A registered non-profit that adopts a modification of objects must notify within 30 days of adoption; the Commissioner may, after enquiring, reject and cancel registration in such cases if not satisfied (Table Sl. No.7; sub-section (7)).

      Interplay

      The Clause expressly references section 2(23) (definition of charitable purposes), u/s 465(2)(g) of the Companies Act, 2013, and section 352 (tax on accreted income) - indicating interplay with substantive definitions and penalty provisions elsewhere. It also refers to "requirements of any other law as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects," signalling cross-compliance checks with other regulatory regimes. Specific cross-references to Rules, Notifications or Circulars beyond "as prescribed" for form and manner: Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Applicants must ensure constitutional documents and asset-holding arrangements evidence an irrevocable trust for public benefit; timely filing is crucial because delays can attract liability u/s 352 if not condoned. Entities altering objects must be alert to the 30-day notification requirement and risk cancellation if changes do not conform to registration conditions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Commissioner is empowered to call for documents and enquiries into genuineness and compliance; applicants should retain foundational documents (trust deed, registration/incorporation records, objects clause, proof of irrevocability of asset holding), evidence of activities, financial statements (income thresholds are relevant for extended validity), and records of communications with funding authorities if government-funded.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 332 prescribes categories of entities eligible to seek registration as non-profit organisations and ties benefits to structural and trust-based conditions.
      • Eligibility requires both charitable/religious objective(s) (per section 2(23)) and assets held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit; temporal limitations apply where assets are only partly for such purposes.
      • The statutory Table creates differentiated filing windows, decision timelines and validity periods depending on commencement of activities and prior registration status; provisional registration and renewal mechanics are provided.
      • Condonation of delayed filings is discretionary and taxable consequences (section 352) follow uncured delay for certain categories.
      • The Principal Commissioner/Commissioner has broad fact-finding powers and may reject or cancel registration following a hearing if not satisfied about genuineness or legal compliance.
      • Lower-income applicants (<= Rs. 5 crore in each of two preceding years) may receive extended registration validity (ten years) in specified situations.
      • Form and manner of orders and applications are to be prescribed; specific rules or forms are not contained in the Clause itself.

      Differences between Section 332 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 332 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

      • Sub-section (2)(a): Clause 332 (Old) expressly includes "or both" after charitable and public religious purposes; Section 332 (Act) omits "or both" (it states "for carrying out one or more charitable purposes ... or one or more public religious purposes").
        • Practical impact: potential interpretive clarity in the Bill (Old) that combined charitable and religious purposes qualify; the Act's omission may invite question but likely not change substantive eligibility where both purposes are present-however the omission reduces textual explicitness.
      • Sub-section (3) procedural reference: The Bill (Old) requires following sub-sections (6) and (7); the Act requires following "the procedure provided in this section."
        • Practical impact: the Act's language is broader and may encompass additional subsections (e.g., 4,5) explicitly; the Old Bill's cross-reference is narrower but functionally the procedure invoked appears to align with the same subsections involved in decision-making.
      • Table - Sl. No.1 decision timeline: Clause 332 (Old) sets time-limit for passing order as "Three months from the end of the month in which application is made"; Section 332 (Act) reduces this to "One month from the end of the month in which application is made."
        • Practical impact: the Act imposes a shorter decision timeline for provisional registration where activities have not commenced, increasing administrative speed and pressure on the tax authority; applicants benefit from quicker certainty.
      • Table - Sl. No.7 scope: Clause 332 (Old) applies to an applicant "being a registered non-profit organisation, has adopted or undertaken modification of its objects." The Act narrows this trigger to modifications "which do not conform to the conditions of registration."
        • Practical impact: the Act narrows the category subject to immediate application requirement to object changes that are non-conforming, reducing compliance burden/risk of cancellation for any object modification that remains within registration conditions.
      • Substantive sequencing in sub-section (7): The Old Bill frames the enquiry "as to the compliance of such requirements of any other law ... and the genuineness of activities" while the Act frames enquiries to satisfy about "genuineness of activities, and the compliance of such requirements ... as are material."
        • Practical impact: largely stylistic, but the Act emphasises genuineness first and limits the scope of other-law compliance to requirements material to achieving objects - potentially narrowing the inquiry's scope.
      • Form of orders: Clause 332 (Old) uses "as prescribed"; Section 332 (Act) uses "as may be prescribed."
        • Practical impact: nominal; no substantive change evident.

      Action Points

      • Entities planning to seek registration should verify that their objects fall within section 2(23) and/or public religious purposes, ensure assets are held under an irrevocable trust for public benefit, and prepare documentary evidence in advance.
      • Registered organisations contemplating modification of objects should assess whether changes "conform to the conditions of registration" (per the Act) to determine the 30-day filing obligation and risk of cancellation.
      • Smaller organisations (income <= Rs. 5 crore in each of the two preceding years) should document income history to avail potential ten-year validity in designated cases.
      • Monitor the prescribed forms and order formats when notified, and be prepared for enquiries from the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner.

      Full Text:

      Section 332 Application for registration

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax