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 353 "Other violations." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      12 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 353 Other violations

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 353 (Income-tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version and Section 353, Income-tax Act, 2025) prescribes tax consequences for registered non-profit organisations that commit specified procedural or substantive violations. It identifies when regular income becomes taxable and prescribes the limited expenditure that may be deducted in computing taxable regular income. Affected parties: registered non-profit organisations and the revenue department. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause/Section 353 operates in the field of the Income-tax legislation and cross-refers expressly to sections 334, 338, 346, 347, 348, 349 and 35(b)(i). Context: The provision addresses "other violations" by registered non-profit organisations and prescribes tax treatment where certain compliance failures or prohibited activities occur during a tax year. Coverage: registered non-profit organisations that (a) fail to maintain books u/s 347, (b) fail to get books audited u/s 348, (c) fail to furnish returns u/s 349, or (d) carry out a commercial activity in contravention of section 346 while carrying out advancement of other object(s) of general public utility. Definitions/explanations: The text does not supply separate definitions beyond its cross-references. Not stated in the document: any legislative history, purpose statement, or definition of terms like "commercial activity" beyond the cross-reference to section 346.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The core structure is as follows:

      • Sub-section (1) - Events: If during a tax year a registered non-profit organisation commits any of the listed failures or contravenes section 346 by carrying out a commercial activity while advancing other objects of general public utility, "its regular income for such tax year as reduced by the expenditure referred to in sub-section (3)" shall become taxable regular income chargeable u/s 334.
      • Sub-section (2) - Specified and residual income: Specified income and residual income of the registered non-profit organisation which are not included under sub-section (1) are also chargeable to tax u/s 334. The Bill states this is "in addition to" the tax under sub-section (1) and that section 338 does not apply; the Act states that the provision operates "irrespective of the provisions of section 338."
      • Sub-section (3) - Permitted expenditure: Sets out conditions under which expenditure is to be recognised in computing the reducible amount of regular income in sub-section (1). Conditions include (in one version) an express ban on capital expenditure and a list of disallowances (e.g., not from corpus, not from loans, depreciation claims limitations, not contributions to persons, payments contravening section 36 subsections, and allowance u/s 35(b)(i)).
      • Sub-section (4) (Act) - No other set off/deduction: The Act explicitly provides that no set off or deduction or allowance other than those in sub-section (3) shall be allowed.

      Interpretation

      The textual design shows a legislative intent to impose tax consequences on non-profits that either fail procedural compliance (books, audit, return) or cross statutory activity boundaries (commercial activity contravening section 346). The provision converts "regular income" into taxable regular income in such years, while permitting a narrow catalogue of expenditure to reduce the taxable amount. The separate treatment of specified and residual income indicates the statute intends to capture all income streams of a non-profit that fall outside permitted treatment, notwithstanding any special provisions in section 338.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The statute creates limited exceptions in favour of the organisation in computing taxable regular income: only expenditure that satisfies the conditions listed in sub-section (3) is allowable. These include expenditure being incurred in India, for the objects of the organisation, not from the corpus as of the end of the preceding tax year, not out of loans or borrowings, with restrictions on depreciation claims and payments to persons in contravention of section 36(4)-(7), and allowance conditions u/s 35(b)(i). In the Bill the express statement "capital expenditure shall not be allowed" appears as a stand-alone clause; in the Act that exclusion is incorporated by the phrase "other than capital expenditure" in the opening of sub-section (3). Not stated in the document: any thresholds, procedures for proving eligibility, or remedial opportunities for the non-profit (e.g., opportunity to rectify defaults) beyond the textual conditions.

      Illustrations

      • Hypothetical 1: A registered non-profit fails to file its return for tax year X and has regular income of Rs. 10 lac. Under sub-section (1) the organisation's regular income, reduced only by qualifying expenditure per sub-section (3), becomes taxable regular income chargeable u/s 334. Not stated in the document: specific tax rate or computation mechanics u/s 334.
      • Hypothetical 2: A registered non-profit carries out a commercial activity contravening section 346 and earns income from that activity that is classified as specified income. If that specified income is not covered by sub-section (1), sub-section (2) renders it chargeable u/s 334 irrespective of section 338. Not stated in the document: how specified/residual incomes are to be apportioned for mixed activities.

      Interplay

      The text expressly interacts with sections 334 (chargeability of tax), 338 (excluded or special treatment), 346 (commercial activity limits), 347-349 (obligations on books/audit/return), 35(b)(i) (allowability of particular payments), and 36(4)-(7) (payments to persons). The Act's language emphasises that section 338 is to be disregarded for incomes captured under sub-section (2) (or "irrespective of" section 338), signalling an intention to prevent special protective mechanisms elsewhere from defeating taxation here. Not stated in the document: any rules, circulars, or clarifying guidance explaining application where multiple provisions overlap.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Placement of prohibition on capital expenditure and set-off: The Bill (Clause 353, Old Version) expressly lists "capital expenditure shall not be allowed" as clause (a) within the computation conditions in sub-section (3), and places the prohibition on set off/deduction as clause (j) within the same sub-section. The enacted Section 353 shifts wording: sub-section (3) begins by saying expenditure referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the expenditure incurred in India (other than capital expenditure) - thereby embedding the capital-expenditure exclusion in the main description - and moves the prohibition on set off/deduction/allowance to a separate sub-section (4).
        • Practical impact: Functionally the same restrictions appear to remain, but the Act's re-structuring separates the list of qualifying expenditure from the rule disallowing other set offs/deductions, which may affect statutory reading and drafting clarity.
      • Sub-section (2) wording and emphasis: The Bill states that "In addition to the tax referred to in sub-section (1), the specified income and residual income ... shall also be chargeable ... to the extent not covered ... and the provisions of section 338 shall not apply." The Act states: "Irrespective of the provisions of section 338, any the specified income and residual income ... which is not included in sub-section (1) shall also be chargeable ..."
        • Practical impact: Both aim to subject specified and residual incomes to tax in addition to sub-section (1) amounts and to neutralise section 338, but the Act's phrasing places a direct emphasis on disregarding section 338; the functional result appears substantially similar, though drafting differences could influence interpretive emphasis in disputes.
      • Minor drafting and typographical differences: The Act contains a minor typographical insertion ("any the specified income") and reorders certain clauses (e.g., clause reference to section 35(b)(i) remains but appears as (h) in the Act).
        • Practical impact: No substantive alteration of substantive conditions is evident from the text provided; differences are primarily structural and stylistic.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Registered non-profit organisations face direct tax exposure where they fail to maintain books, secure an audit, file returns, or engage in prohibited commercial activity. The provision narrows allowable deductions, increasing effective taxable base risk in non-compliance years.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The statute highlights the primacy of expenditure "incurred in India," "for the objects of the registered non-profit," and not from corpus or borrowings. Organisations should, therefore, maintain clear contemporaneous records proving the source of funds, purpose of expenditure, location of expenditure, and depreciation claims, though procedural requirements for proof are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 353 targets both procedural failures (books, audit, returns) and substantive violation (commercial activity contrary to section 346) by registered non-profits and converts regular income into taxable regular income for the tax year of violation.
      • Specified and residual incomes not covered under the taxable regular income provision are also taxed u/s 334, and the provision disfavors the application of section 338.
      • The statute permits only a narrow class of expenditures to reduce taxable regular income; capital expenditure and certain categories of payments are excluded.
      • The Act restructured certain clauses from the Bill (notably repositioning the capital expenditure exclusion and the prohibition on other set offs/deductions), with no clear substantive relaxation or extension shown in the text provided.
      • Organisations must maintain documentation showing source and nature of expenditures, but specific procedural proofs or remedial mechanisms are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 353 Other violations

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax