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 337 "Specified 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 337 Specified income

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is Clause 337 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), which defines "specified income" of a registered non-profit organisation and prescribes the tax year in which each category of specified income is taxable. It matters to registered non-profit organisations, tax authorities, and advisers overseeing compliance and application of tax exemptions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 337 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The clause sets out a table enumerating categories of "specified income" of a registered non-profit organisation and prescribes the tax year in which each category is to be taxed. Definitions: The text does not provide standalone definitions for "registered non-profit organisation," "specified income," or other terms beyond the entries in the table. Not stated in the document: legislative purpose, explanatory notes, or effective date.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 337 lists 11 categories of income that qualify as "specified income" for registered non-profit organisations and assigns the taxable year for each category. The categories include: (1) anonymous donations (with an exclusion up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of donations), (2) income applied for benefit of related persons, (3) income applied outside India contrary to section 338(a), (4) investments made contrary to section 350 out of various funds, (5) deemed corpus donations violating section 340 conditions, (6) accumulated income applied to non-charitable/religious purposes, (7) accumulated income ceasing to be set apart for specified purposes u/s 342(1), (8) accumulated income not utilised within the period specified in section 342(1), (9) accumulated income credited or paid to another registered non-profit organisation, (10) income applied to purposes other than those for which the organisation is registered, and (11) income determined by the Assessing Officer u/s 344 in excess of income shown in books of a business undertaking.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a categorized, prescriptive approach: each identified event or failure resulting in income losing its non-taxable character is captured and linked to the tax year when taxation will arise. The text implies a legislative intent to specify distinct triggers for taxation of amounts that otherwise might be treated as exempt or charitable receipts. Specific interpretive guidance (e.g., definitions of "related person" or computation method) is not provided beyond cross-references; where procedural computation is required the clause says "computed in the manner, as prescribed" indicating delegated rules are expected. Not stated in the document: any legislative history or materials explaining the choice of triggers.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains limited carve-outs: the anonymous donation rule excludes donations up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations (whichever is higher) and exempts anonymous donations received by organisations "created or established wholly for religious purposes." No other explicit exceptions or provisos appear in Clause 337. Not stated in the document: any special thresholds for other items, or transitional provisions.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered non-profit organisation receives an anonymous donation of Rs.50,000 in a tax year and total donations in that year are Rs.10,00,000. Threshold (Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations = Rs.1,00,000 vs Rs.50,000) - the donation equals Rs.50,000 which is below Rs.1,00,000, so it is excluded from specified income. Not stated in the document: treatment beyond this illustration (e.g., reporting procedure).
      • Example 2: An organisation applies a portion of its income for the benefit of a related person; that portion will be taxable in the tax year in which the application is made, "computed in the manner, as prescribed." Not stated in the document: who is a "related person" or the computation formula.
      • Example 3: An Assessing Officer determines additional income u/s 344 in excess of books for a business undertaking run by the organisation; such income is taxable in the tax year to which that income relates. Not stated in the document: standards of assessment or appeals procedure.

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references other provisions (sections 338(a), 340, 341(1)-(4), 342(1), 344, and 350), indicating reliance on these sections for specifying conduct that will convert otherwise exempt income into taxable specified income. The clause anticipates subordinate legislation by using "as prescribed" for computation. Not stated in the document: text of the referenced sections or the specific rules that will prescribe computations or definitions.

      Differences Between Document 1 (Section 337, Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 337Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version))

      Summary of textual differences and practical impact:

      • Broader exclusion for religious organisations (anonymous donations): Document 1 excludes anonymous donations for organisations "created or established,- (i) wholly for religious purposes, or (ii) wholly for charitable and religious purposes (excluding anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital; or other medical institution run by such registered non-profit organisation)." Document 2 excludes only organisations "created or established wholly for religious purposes."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 provides a narrower exception (it adds a carve-out for organisations "wholly for charitable and religious purposes" but then expressly excludes certain directed donations for educational and medical institutions). This may reduce the number of anonymous donations treated as non-specified income for organisations running both charitable and religious activities, especially where donations are directed to educational or medical institutions.
      • Quantitative phrasing and punctuation differences (anonymous donation threshold): Both versions retain the threshold "up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5%," but Document 1 adds "or 5% of the total donations received by it during the tax year, whichever is higher," while Document 2 uses "or 5% of the such donations received by it during the tax year, whichever is higher."
        • Practical impact: Substantively the threshold appears the same; Document 1's phrasing is slightly clearer by specifying "total donations." No material change to tax effect is apparent.
      • Wording changes re: investments/deposits: Document 1 (items 4 and related) refers to "Any investment or deposit made in contravention to the provisions of section 350," whereas Document 2 refers to "Any investment made in contravention to the provisions of section 350."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 explicitly captures both investments and deposits; Document 2 captures only investments. This broadens the reach in Document 1 to include deposits that may have been omitted previously.
      • Additional items in Document 1 (more entries in the table): Document 1 includes several items absent from Document 2: numbered items 12 and 13 (fair market value of non-specified asset held beyond one year; any deemed application u/s 341(5) not actually applied within the period specified in section 341(6)). Document 2's table ends at item 11.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 expands the list of specified income events, creating additional contingencies where income will be taxed (e.g., failure to hold assets in specified forms/modes, failure to actually apply deemed application amounts abroad/time limits). This increases compliance exposures for registered non-profit organisations.
      • Variation in language for accumulated income utilisation (item 8): Document 1 describes "if it is not applied as per the provisions of section 341(1) to (4) for which it is accumulated or set apart within the period for which it was accumulated or set apart as specified in section 342(1)." Document 2 uses "if it is not utilised for the purpose, for which it is accumulated or set apart within the period for which it was accumulated or set apart as specified in section 342(1)."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 ties the failure to application specifically to sections 341(1)-(4), which may be a clarifying reference to specified modes of application; Document 2 uses broader language "utilised for the purpose." The change narrows the trigger in Document 1 to non-compliance with the procedural application provisions.
      • Formatting and minor drafting clarifications: Document 1 contains more detailed cross-references and slightly different punctuation/wording across multiple clauses (e.g., "computed in the manner, as may be prescribed" vs "computed in the manner, as prescribed").
        • Practical impact: Mainly drafting clarity; limited substantive effect beyond the changes noted above.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Registered non-profit organisations must monitor anonymous donations relative to the stated threshold and ascertain whether donations are directed or truly anonymous; they must also ensure that applications of income (domestic and foreign), investments/deposits, treatment of accumulated income, and use of corpus conform to the referenced sections to avoid specified income classification.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause implies the necessity of records evidencing donor directions, use of funds, dates of application of income, details of investments/deposits (to show compliance with section 350), and documentary evidence supporting any inter-organisation credits or payments. Not stated in the document: exact documentary standards or retention periods.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 337 enumerates 11 categories of "specified income" for registered non-profit organisations and ties each to a specific tax year for taxation.
      • Anonymous donations are partly excluded up to Rs.1,00,000 or 5% of total donations, and donations to organisations "wholly for religious purposes" are exempt from being specified income under this clause.
      • Several operational failures (application to related persons, investments/deposits contrary to section 350, misuse of accumulated income, failure to meet corpus conditions) convert funds into taxable specified income.
      • The clause delegates computation of certain items ("as prescribed") and relies on other substantive provisions (sections 338, 340, 341, 342, 344, 350), but does not define key terms such as "related person" or set out procedural details.
      • Organisations face increased compliance obligations to track uses of funds, inter-organisational transfers, and investments/deposits to avoid taxation under these triggers.

      Full Text:

      Section 337 Specified income

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax