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 392 "Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee." 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 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The texts compared are Clause 392 dealing with deduction of income-tax at source on salaries and accumulated balances payable to employees. They affect employers/payers, trustees of provident/superannuation funds, eligible start-ups and employees. The documents are the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025 (Section 392) as reproduced; differences between the two are identified below. Effective date or commencement is: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: provisions are located in the chapter dealing with deduction and collection at source (TDS/TCS) and interact with section 17 (taxability of perquisites), section 140 (definition/eligibility of start-ups as referenced), section 289(3) (time for payment by payee), Schedule XI (paragraphs referenced) and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. The provision governs-(a) employer obligations to deduct tax on salaries at average rates; (b) optional payment of tax by employers on non-monetary perquisites; (c) special rules for eligible start-ups and allotment/transfer of specified securities or sweat equity; (d) particulars to be furnished by the assessee for estimating tax to be deducted; and (e) obligation of trustees/authorised persons to deduct tax on accumulated balances under provident/superannuation funds.

      Definitions or explanatory provisions: Not stated in the document beyond cross-references to section 17, section 140, section 289(3) and Schedule XI. The precise meaning of "average rate" is not defined in these texts; Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Section/Clause 392 imposes obligations on any person responsible for paying income chargeable under the head "Salaries" to deduct income-tax at the time of payment at the average rate computed on the estimated income of the assessee for that year. It addresses non-monetary perquisites (optional employer payment), special rules for eligible start-ups relating to specified securities/sweat equity, particulars to be furnished by the assessee for deduction computation, duties of trustees of recognised provident funds and superannuation funds, and a specific procedure and rate (10%) for deduction by EPF trustees where aggregated payments are Rs. 50,000 or more and the amount is includible in total income. Ingredients/elements: payer responsibility, timing of deduction (at payment), rate basis (average rate), prescribed forms and verification for employee particulars, trustees' deduction obligations where Schedule XI paragraphs apply, and the specific 10% deduction rule for EPF accumulated balances.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: Not stated in the document. The text indicates a scheme to place primary responsibility on payers/trustees to withhold tax at source at average rates and to provide procedural avenues (prescribed forms/verification) for employees to influence withholding amounts. No explicit statement of intent beyond operative obligations is provided in the documents.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly present in the text include:

      • Reduction of tax deductible from salary is permitted only on account of (i) loss under "Income from house property"; and (ii) tax already deducted/collected under other provisions of the Chapter.
      • Trustees of recognised provident funds/superannuation funds must apply deductions where specified paragraphs of Schedule XI apply; EPF trustees must deduct 10% where aggregate payment is Rs. 50,000 or more and the balance is includible in total income owing to paragraph 8 of Part A of Schedule XI not being applicable.
      • Employers may elect to pay tax on non-monetary perquisites at their option; in such cases tax is treated as if deductible at source from salary and subject to Chapter provisions.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer must deduct TDS at average rate on monthly salary payable to an employee by estimating annual salary income and applying the rates in force for that tax year. (Details of computation method are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A trustee of a recognised provident fund pays an accumulated balance of Rs. 75,000 to a former employee where the amount is includible in total income; the trustee is required to deduct tax at 10% at payment. (Exact calculation and remittance timelines are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 3: An eligible start-up issues sweat equity to an employee; the start-up shall either deduct tax or pay tax on the amount as per rates in force for the tax year in which the security is allotted/ transferred and within the time specified for the payee in section 289(3).

      Interplay

      The provision cross-references section 17 (perquisites), section 140 (eligible start-up reference), section 289(3) (timing for payment by payee), and Schedule XI (conditions for provident/superannuation fund taxability and deductions). Specific rules or notifications prescribing forms, verification methods, the rate of exchange for foreign currency salary conversion, and prescribed forms/manner are referenced but not reproduced here. The texts do not reproduce the content of Schedule XI or section 17; interpretation will require reference to those provisions. Any further interaction with rules or circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Identified Differences Between the Section 392 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 392 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025

      • Reference to section 17 sub-clause for perquisites: Enacted Section 392(2)(a) references taxability "u/s 17(1)" for non-monetary perquisites; the Bill (Old Version) text references section 17(2).
        • Practical impact: The numerical cross-reference determines which clause of section 17 the optional employer payment applies to. The documents differ; the operative effect depends on which provision in section 17 actually concerns the specified non-monetary perquisites. The enacted text may broaden or narrow the set of perquisites covered relative to the Bill depending on the content of section 17(1) vs 17(2). The exact policy effect cannot be determined from these documents alone.
      • Clause 3 wording - "as the case may be": Enacted text (Document 1) in sub-section (3) reads that an eligible start-up "shall deduct or pay, as the case may be," whereas the Bill (Document 2) omits "as the case may be."
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of "as the case may be" clarifies that an eligible start-up may either deduct tax or pay tax itself (i.e., two alternative obligations). Omission could create ambiguity whether the obligation is exclusively to deduct. The enacted text clarifies options for compliance by start-ups.
      • Specification of verification and timeframe language in sub-section (4): Enacted section 392(4)(a) requires particulars "in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed" and explicitly adds "for the same tax year" to sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) in certain places; the Bill uses shorter phrasing ("in such form and manner as prescribed") and omits some temporal qualifiers.
        • Practical impact: The enacted text tightens/formalises the evidentiary and verification requirement for particulars provided by the assessee and expressly ties several particulars to the same tax year, potentially reducing ambiguity in year-to-year adjustments. Employers/payers may be required to follow prescribed verification formalities when accepting employee declarations.
      • Sub-section (4)(b) minor drafting difference: Both versions preserve that tax deductible from salaries shall not be reduced except for house property loss and tax deducted/collected under other provisions. The enacted text explicitly states "the tax deductible from income under the head 'Salaries' shall not be reduced in any case, except on account of-- (i) loss under the head 'Income from house property'; and (ii) the tax deducted and collected as per other provisions of this Chapter." The Bill's wording is substantially the same.
        • Practical impact: No substantive change evident from the texts provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Employers/payers must estimate annual salary income to compute average rate TDS at time of payment and must obtain/verify prescribed particulars from employees if they are to affect the TDS. Failure to deduct (or incorrectly deduct) may expose payers to liability under the Chapter; trustees have direct obligations to deduct at specified rates where applicable.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: Employers should maintain prescribed forms and the verification records for employee-furnished particulars; trustees should retain documents supporting calculation of accumulated balances and that payments meet the Schedule XI conditions for deduction. Exact record retention periods and form identifiers are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 392 places primary TDS obligation on payers for salary payments at an average rate computed on estimated annual income.
      • Employers may opt to pay tax on non-monetary perquisites; enacted text cross-references a different sub-clause of section 17 than the Bill, creating a substantive difference in coverage depending on section 17's content.
      • Eligible start-ups have clarified flexibility ("deduct or pay, as the case may be") in the enacted text for tax on specified securities/sweat equity allotted/transferred.
      • Enacted text strengthens/formalises verification requirements for employee particulars used to compute TDS and ties certain particulars to the same tax year.
      • Trustees of provident and superannuation funds must deduct tax under Schedule XI rules; EPF trustees must deduct at 10% where aggregated payment is Rs. 50,000 or more and certain Schedule XI conditions make the amount taxable.
      • Several differences between Bill and enacted text are drafting/formulation fixes; some differences (notably the cross-reference to section 17 and inclusion of "as the case may be") may have substantive application effects.
      • Details on rates, prescribed forms, verification manner, timing for remittance, and administrative procedure are referenced but not contained in these texts; such procedural content is Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax