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 336 "Taxable Regular income." 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 336 Taxable regular income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document compares two textual versions of Clause/Section 336 concerning the "taxable regular income" of a registered non-profit organisation: the "Old Version" as appearing in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and the later text as enacted (Section 336 of the Income-tax Act, 2025). The provision sets out when a registered non-profit's taxable regular income is nil and how taxable regular income is computed otherwise. The change primarily clarifies the reference to application (section 341) and accumulation (section 342). Affected parties include registered non-profit organisations, tax authorities, and advisors. Effective date or assent date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 336 is located in the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025 and is cast within the Part dealing with income of registered non-profit organisations. The provision addresses computation of "taxable regular income" for any tax year. The text invokes two related provisions: section 341 (application for charitable or religious purposes) and section 342 (accumulation for charitable or religious purposes). Definitions of "regular income", "registered non-profit organisation", "application", "accumulation", and related terms: Not stated in the document. The Bill version includes a short legislative note - "Clause 336 of the Bill seeks to deal with the taxable regular income of a registered non-profit organisation." No other contextual material is provided in the documents.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The operative text in both versions establishes two alternative outcomes for the taxable regular income of a registered non-profit organisation for a tax year:

      • Where 85% or more of the regular income of that tax year has been applied or accumulated for charitable or religious purposes in that tax year as per the provisions of the Part, the taxable regular income is nil.
      • In any other case, taxable regular income is 85% of the regular income for that tax year, reduced by the amount applied for charitable or religious purposes or accumulated for such purposes in that tax year as per the Part.

      Differences in wording between the versions are limited to phrasing that links "application" with section 341 and "accumulation" with section 342 in the enacted text; the Bill's older wording conflates the statutory cross-references in a manner that is less precise.

      Interpretation

      The enacted wording indicates an interpretive distinction: "applied as per provisions of section 341 or accumulated u/s 342" (Act text) - this ties application specifically to section 341 and accumulation to section 342. The Bill's earlier wording reads "applied or accumulated u/s 342" in one instance and in another instance omits reference to section 341; therefore the Bill version is ambiguous as to whether "application" must conform to section 341 or whether both application and accumulation were to be governed by section 342.

      Legislative intent (as discernible from the text): to exempt from tax that portion of regular income actually devoted to charitable/religious purposes (subject to the 85% threshold), and otherwise to require that 85% of regular income (less amounts applied/accumulated for charitable purposes) be treated as taxable regular income. Whether the statutory 85% operates as a minimum threshold for nil tax or as a base for computation when the threshold is not met is stated in the text; deeper policy rationale or legislative history: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No explicit provisos, exceptions, or thresholds other than the 85% quantitative threshold are provided in the texts shown. There are no provisos detailing what qualifies as "application" or "accumulation", time limits, or permissible uses of accumulated funds in the documents supplied: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (nil taxable regular income): A registered non-profit has regular income of 1,000,000 in a tax year and applies or accumulates 850,000 (85%) for charitable or religious purposes in that same tax year as per the Part. Under the provision, taxable regular income = nil.
      • Example 2 (taxable regular income computed): A registered non-profit has regular income of 1,000,000 but applies only 600,000 in the tax year for charitable purposes and accumulates none. Under the provision, taxable regular income = 85% of 1,000,000 reduced by 600,000 = 850,000 - 600,000 = 250,000.
      • Example 3 (aggregation of application and accumulation): A registered non-profit has regular income 1,000,000, applies 500,000 and accumulates 200,000 in that tax year for charitable purposes. Total applied or accumulated = 700,000 (<85%); taxable regular income = 850,000 - 700,000 = 150,000.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly references sections 341 and 342 (in the enacted text) as the governing provisions for application and accumulation. Any rules, notifications, circulars, or further clarifications about what constitutes application u/s 341 or accumulation u/s 342: Not stated in the document. Interaction with other Parts of the Act beyond the stated sections (e.g., treatment of accumulated funds in later years, restrictions on application, or conditions for approval): Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The enacted text reduces an ambiguity present in the Bill by expressly linking application to section 341 and accumulation to section 342. This reduces interpretive risk about which section governs "application" versus "accumulation". Assessing officers and taxpayers will rely on the separate regimes in sections 341 and 342 to determine whether funds have been validly applied or validly accumulated within the tax year.
      • Calculation mechanics: Taxable regular income is not simply the shortfall from 85% but explicitly 85% of regular income less amounts applied/accumulated in that tax year as per the Part. Practitioners must therefore compute 85% of regular income first, and then subtract qualifying amounts applied/accumulated, rather than, for example, computing net income then applying 85%.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: While the documents do not set forms or procedural requirements, the reliance on sections 341 and 342 implies that documentation showing compliance with those sections will be material to claim nil status or to substantiate deductions from the 85% base. Specific records required: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision establishes a two-step rule: nil taxable regular income when 85% or more of regular income is applied/accumulated for charitable/religious purposes in the tax year; otherwise taxable regular income equals 85% of regular income reduced by applicable applied/accumulated amounts.
      • The enacted text clarifies that "application" is governed by section 341 and "accumulation" by section 342; the Bill's older text was less precise on this point.
      • Computation is anchored to 85% of regular income; amounts applied/accumulated in the same tax year under the Part are then deducted from that 85% figure to arrive at taxable regular income.
      • This drafting clarification reduces interpretive uncertainty between application and accumulation and focuses attention on compliance with sections 341 and 342.
      • Details about definitions, recordkeeping, timing rules, and procedural requirements u/ss 341/342 are not contained in the documents and remain necessary to implement the provision.

      Differences Between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 336 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 336 of the Income-tax Act, 2025
      Reference to application vs accumulationUses the phrase "applied or accumulated u/s 342" in one instance and omits an explicit reference to section 341; this conflates or omits the separate statutory bases for application and accumulation.Uses the phrase "applied as per provisions of section 341 or accumulated u/s 342", explicitly distinguishing application (s.341) from accumulation (s.342).
      ClarityAmbiguous as to which section governs "application".Clear linkage: application -> s.341; accumulation -> s.342.
      Practical impactCreates potential for disputes over whether an amount claimed as "applied" need satisfy s.341 or could be governed by s.342; raises compliance risk and administrative uncertainty.Reduces ambiguity; taxpayers and authorities must assess qualification under the appropriate section (341 or 342), thereby narrowing interpretive disputes and guiding evidence and documentation requirements toward the relevant section.

      Action Points

      • Registered non-profit organisations should review their disbursement and accumulation practices to ensure they meet the conditions of section 341 for application and section 342 for accumulation, because the enacted text expressly ties the tax outcome to compliance with those sections.
      • Tax advisors and in-house counsel should prepare documentation demonstrating that applied or accumulated amounts comply with the relevant section, given that the computation subtracts only amounts applied/accumulated "as per the provisions of this Part".
      • Tax officers should apply the separate tests in sections 341 and 342 when verifying claims u/s 336 rather than treating application and accumulation as governed by a single rule.

      Full Text:

      Section 336 Taxable regular income

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax