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 356 "Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals)." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      13 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 356 Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 356 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (hereafter "Clause 356 (Old)"). It sets out appealability to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against certain orders of Assessing Officers below the rank of Joint Commissioner. It matters to assessees and the tax department (appeals cadre); affected parties include individual and entity taxpayers, and assessing/deductor/collector authorities where specified. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 356 (Old) is placed in Chapter XVIII (APPEALS, REVISIONS AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS), Part A.- Appeals, I.-Appeals to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). It addresses appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). Definitions: the clause includes a definition of "status" by reference to section 2(77). Other definitions or scope-limiting language: Not stated in the document beyond the text of Clause 356 itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 356 (Old) provides that any assessee aggrieved by specified orders of an Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner) may appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The enumerated appealable orders under sub-section (1) are:

      • (a) Intimation u/s 270(1) or 399(1) where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments;
      • (b) Order u/s 270(10) or 271 where the assessee objects to assessed income, determined tax, computed loss, or status;
      • (c) Order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s 279;
      • (d) Order u/s 398;
      • (e) Order imposing penalty under Chapter XXI;
      • (f) Order u/s 287 or 288 amending any of the orders or intimations in clauses (a) to (e).

      Sub-section (2) bars appeals where the impugned order is passed by or with the prior approval of an income-tax authority above the rank of Deputy Commissioner.

      Sub-section (3) empowers the Board (or income-tax authority authorised by the Board) to transfer appeals between Commissioner (Appeals) and Joint Commissioner (Appeals), with the transferee continuing from the stage at which it was transferred.

      Sub-section (4) mandates that where an appeal is transferred under sub-section (3), the appellant shall be given an opportunity of being reheard.

      Sub-section (5) permits the Central Government to notify a scheme to dispose of appeals expeditiously "by eliminating the interface between the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellant, to the extent technologically feasible" and to direct that provisions relating to jurisdiction and procedure "shall not apply or shall apply with exceptions, modifications and adaptations."

      Sub-section (6) allows the Board to specify that any provisions of this section shall not apply to any case or class of cases.

      Sub-section (7) defines "status" by reference to section 2(77).

      Interpretation

      The text prioritises a statutory right of appeal for assessees from subordinate assessing officers' orders to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) within specified categories. The presence of transfer powers (sub-section (3)) and rehearing requirement (sub-section (4)) suggests legislative intent to permit administrative flexibility while preserving procedural fairness. The scheme power in sub-section (5) reflects an intent to modernise and streamline appeal disposal (including technological interface reduction), and to permit modifications of jurisdictional/procedural rules to achieve that aim. Beyond these textual indicators, legislative purpose or debates are Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key exceptions included within the clause:

      • Sub-section (2): No appeal to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) if the order was passed by or with prior approval of an authority above Deputy Commissioner.
      • Sub-section (5): Central Government may supersede certain procedural/jurisdictional provisions via notified scheme.
      • Sub-section (6): Board may carve out cases or classes of cases to which the section will not apply.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A taxpayer objects to an adjusting entry in an intimation u/s 270(1) - under Clause 356 (Old) they may appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). (Illustrative facts not detailed in the document.)
      • Example 2: A taxpayer dissatisfied with a reassessment order u/s 279 - appealable to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals). (Not stated in the document whether time limits or form are prescribed.)

      Interplay

      Clause 356 (Old) cross-refers to multiple other provisions (sections 270(1), 399(1), 270(10), 271, 279, 287, 288, 398, Chapter XXI penalties, and section 2(77)). It creates transferability with Commissioner (Appeals) and contemplates a Central Government scheme that may alter application of other provisions of the Act relating to jurisdiction and procedure. Specific Rules/Notifications/Circulars that interpret or implement these powers are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Clause 356 (Old) and Section 356 (Act)

      Summary of textual differences and their practical impact (based strictly on the two provided texts):

      • Who may appeal: Clause 356 (Old) uses the phrase "Any assessee, aggrieved by ..." (Document 2). Section 356 (Act) expands the class to "Any assessee or any deductor or any collector, aggrieved by ..." (Document 1).
        • Practical impact: the Act expressly allows deductors and collectors to appeal; the Bill's older text limited appeals explicitly to assessees only. This expansion in the Act broadens standing to appeal to include persons who operate as deductors/collectors, increasing potential appellants and workload for the appellate authority.
      • Clause (a) - nature of objection: Clause 356 (Old) states "where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments"; Section 356 (Act) states "where the assessee or deductor or collector objects to the adjustments made therein."
        • Practical impact: the Act clarifies and modernises language, aligning with inclusion of deductors/collectors and framing objection to adjustments already made ("adjustments made therein") rather than merely "making of adjustments," which may narrow ambiguity about timing/context of objection.
      • Sub-section (1) opening phrase and inclusivity of clauses: Clause 356 (Old) lists only "Any assessee, aggrieved..." and the clause (f) refers to "any of the orders or intimations in clauses (a) to (e)." Section 356 (Act) mirrors the structure but, because it includes deductor/collector, clause (f) references clauses (a) to (e) similarly.
        • Practical impact: principally the same technical catch-all for amendments to orders; effect depends on expanded class of appellants in the Act.
      • Sub-section (3)(a) drafting order and punctuation: Clause 356 (Old) text reads that Board may transfer "any appeal filed against an order referred to in sub-section (1) and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeal, which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals);" Section 356 (Act) reverses subordinate phrase order: "any appeal filed against an order referred to in sub-section (1), which is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), and any matter arising out of or connected with such appeal and which is so pending, to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals);"
        • Practical impact: mostly drafting clarity; Section 356 (Act) is marginally clearer about pendency and connected matters, reducing potential ambiguity over what may be transferred.
      • Definition of "status": Clause 356 (Old) states "In this section, 'status' means the category of person as defined in section 2(77) ..." while Section 356 (Act) states "For the purposes of this section and section 357, 'status' means the category of person as defined in section 2(77) ..."
        • Practical impact: the Act expressly links the meaning to section 357 as well; this ties interpretive clarity across adjacent provisions and may affect cross-reference interpretation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The clause delineates which subordinate assessing officer orders are appealable; practitioners must map disputes to the listed heads (intimations/assessment/reassessment/penalties/amendments). The allowance for transfers and scheme-based alterations means uncertainty may arise as to which forum will hear the appeal; clients should monitor Board notifications and Central Government schemes. Time limits, forms, or procedural requirements are Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Given the appealability of adjustments and amended orders, maintaining clear audit trails for adjustments in intimations (section 270(1)/399(1)), reasons for reassessment, and any correspondence authorising amendments u/ss 287/288 will be important. The document itself does not prescribe specific records.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 356 (Old) grants a statutory right of appeal to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) for assessees against specified orders of Assessing Officers below Joint Commissioner rank.
      • The provision enumerates specific appealable orders: intimations involving adjustments, orders under specified assessment and penalty sections, and amendments u/ss 287/288.
      • Appeals are barred where the impugned order was passed by or with prior approval of an authority above Deputy Commissioner.
      • The Board/Central Government are empowered to transfer appeals between appellate authorities and to notify schemes that may alter procedural and jurisdictional rules, including technological interface elimination.
      • The clause defines "status" by reference to section 2(77), but other interpretive aids, time-limits, forms, and procedural details are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 356 Appealable orders before Joint Commissioner (Appeals).

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax