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 394 "Collection of tax at source." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      15 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 394 Collection of tax at source.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 394 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out a statutory regime for collection of tax at source (TCS) on specified receipts by specified persons at prescribed rates. It identifies nine categories of receipts (sale of specified goods, certain remittances, overseas tour packages, use of parking/toll/mines) and prescribes collection obligations, exemptions on presentation of declarations, and limited interplay with other tax deduction obligations. The provision affects sellers, authorised dealers, licensors/lessors and buyers; effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 394 (Deduction and collection at source) in the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The clause establishes a TCS framework: persons specified in column C of an accompanying Table are obligated to collect tax on receipts in column B at rates in column D and at the time specified in clause (1)(c). The Table enumerates nine receipt types, identifies the collector (seller, authorised dealer, licensor/lessor) and prescribes TCS rates. Definitions: "forest produce" is to have the same meaning as in any State Act for the time being in force or in the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The text includes procedural exemptions and limited interplays with other liabilities to deduct tax at source elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill version provides the operative words of the regime but omits certain implementation details and administrative timelines now present in the enacted text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 394(1) establishes three elements of the collection obligation: (a) the receipts on which TCS is to be collected (Table, column B); (b) the rate of collection (Table, column D); and (c) the timing - "at the time of debiting of the amount payable ... to the account of the buyer ... or at the time of receipt of such amount ... in cash or by way of a cheque of a draft or any other mode, whichever is earlier." The Table enumerates nine categories, including sale of alcoholic liquor for human consumption (1%), tendu leaves (5%), timber and other forest produce (2%), scrap (1%), specified minerals (1%), sale consideration exceeding Rs.10,00,000 for motor vehicles or other notified goods (1%), LRS remittances exceeding Rs.10,00,000 (5% for education/medical; 20% for other), overseas tour packages (5% up to Rs.10,00,000; 20% above), and use of parking/toll/mines/quarry (2%). Clause 394(6) prescribes the statutory meaning of "forest produce" by reference to state law or the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

      Interpretation

      The Bill frames TCS as a duty of the person effecting the receipt (seller, authorised dealer, licensor/lessor), with timing tied to debiting to account or actual receipt - a cash/book nexus that aims to align collection with actual cashflow or accounting recognition. The specified rates signal policy choices: low rates (1-2%) on certain commodities, higher rates (5%/20%) on cross-border remittances and tourism packages to operate as deterrents or pre-emptive collection mechanisms for potential tax leakage. The cross-reference to state definitions for "forest produce" indicates legislative intent to harmonise with existing local regimes rather than introduce a uniform federal definition.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 394(2) exempts collection for buyers who are Indian residents when they furnish a written declaration in duplicate in a prescribed form and manner, stating that the goods are to be utilised for manufacturing/processing/generating power and not for trading purposes. Clause 394(3) requires the collector to deliver one copy of the declaration to the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner "on or before the seventh day of the month following the month of receipt of that declaration" in the enacted text; the Bill version simply requires delivery of one copy (the Bill does not state the exact timetable). Clause 394(4) (Bill) excludes collection by the authorised dealer on amounts for which tax has already been collected by the seller (serial 8). Clause 394(5) excludes collection in cases where the buyer is liable to deduct tax under other provisions and has done so. Clause 394(6) supplies the definition of "forest produce."

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A seller sells scrap to a resident buyer for Rs.200,000 and debits the buyer's ledger the same day. Under Clause 394(1), seller must collect 1% TCS at the time of debiting/receipt. If the buyer furnishes the prescribed declaration (utilisation for manufacturing and not trading), the collector need not collect TCS (Clause 394(2)).
      • Example 2: An individual remits Rs.1,500,000 under LRS for non-medical/non-educational purposes. The authorised dealer must collect 20% TCS on the remitted amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000 (Clause 394, serial 7(b)). If tax has already been collected by a seller under serial 8 on a related amount, appropriate non-duplication applies (Clause 394(4) in Bill limited to that interaction).
      • Example 3: A licensor receives Rs.500,000 for permitting use of a private parking lot. Clause 394 (serial 9) prescribes 2% TCS collected by the licensor/lessor at time of debiting/receipt.

      Interplay

      Clause 394 interacts with other TDS/TCS provisions of the Bill (not reproduced in the document). Clause 394(5) expressly disapplies collection where the buyer is already liable to deduct tax under other provisions and has done so - a non-cumulation rule. The Bill's reference to "any other provisions of this Act" implies coordination across the deduction-and-collection regime but does not list the specific provisions. The Bill leaves administrative details (forms, manner, prescribed formats and verification) to subordinate rulemaking ("as prescribed"), which will govern practical compliance.

      Differences between Section 394 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 394 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) 

      • Drafting corrections and wording: The Bill (old version) in sub-clause (1)(c) reads "by way of a cheque of a draft" (typographical error). The enacted Section 394 corrects this to "by way of a cheque or a draft or any other mode".
        • Practical impact: clarification removes ambiguity about acceptable modes of receipt; no substantive tax consequence but reduces litigation risk from drafting ambiguity.
      • Sub-section (2) - scope and framing: The enacted Section 394 introduces the prefatory phrase "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) (Table: Sl. Nos. 1 to 5)," before describing the exemption on presentation of a declaration; the Bill omits that prefatory phrase.
        • Practical impact: the enacted phrasing emphasizes that the exemption operates notwithstanding the collection obligation in sub-section (1), reinforcing that the declaration displaces the collection duty for the specified buyers; the Bill's omission leaves the relationship implicit and could have been relied upon for a narrower reading.
      • Declaration procedure and delivery obligation (sub-section (3)): The Bill requires the person responsible to "deliver, one copy of the declaration" to the tax commissioner. The enacted Section 394 requires the person to "deliver or cause to be delivered, one copy of the declaration ... on or before the seventh day of the month following the month of receipt of that declaration."
        • Practical impact: enacted language adds a compliance timeline (7th day) and a causation clause ("or cause to be delivered") broadening responsibility where a third party may effect delivery; increased procedural clarity and a strict timeline for administrative receipt by the tax authority.
      • Exception for remittances under LRS and loans for education (sub-section (4)): The Bill's sub-section (4) is limited to excluding collection "on such amount on which tax has been collected by the seller referred to in serial number 8." The enacted provision expands sub-section (4) to add a second clause: (b) exclusion where the remitted amount is a loan obtained from any financial institution as defined in section 129(3)(b) for the purpose of pursuing any education.
        • Practical impact: enactment introduces an additional exemption for LRS remittances funded by education loans from defined financial institutions, reducing tax collection at source burden for such remittances and creating an additional compliance and verification requirement for authorised dealers.
      • Sub-section numbering/footnote and cross-reference language: The Bill's sub-section (6) references "For the purposes of this sub-section, 'forest produce'..." The enacted statute references "For the purposes of this section, 'forest produce'..." and includes a corrigendum note.
        • Practical impact: enacted change clarifies intended scope of the definition provision to the whole section rather than a single sub-section; corrigendum indicates a correction post enactment, reducing interpretive uncertainty regarding where the defined term applies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Collectors (sellers, authorised dealers, licensors/lessors) must identify when receipts fall within the Table, determine the correct rate, and collect at the time of debiting or receipt. Risk areas include misclassification of receipts (e.g., whether a receipt is for "sale of minerals" versus other services), failure to obtain or preserve prescribed declarations, and duplicate collection where overlapping entries (serial 7 and 8) may apply.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Collectors should maintain copies of declarations (one copy to be delivered to tax authorities per Bill), evidence of debiting/receipt dates, and documentation to show exemption conditions (e.g., buyer's declaration of end-use). Payment records and ledger entries will be critical to demonstrate correct timing and rate application. Where cross-collection rules apply (serial 7 vs 8), proof of prior collection by the seller will be material to avoid collection by the authorised dealer.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 394 prescribes TCS on nine specified receipts, allocating collection obligations to sellers, authorised dealers or licensors/lessors at fixed rates.
      • Timing of collection is anchored to debiting the buyer's account or actual receipt - creating a clear cash/book nexus for collection events.
      • Buyers who are Indian residents can avoid collection on certain goods by furnishing a prescribed declaration of end-use (manufacturing/processing/generating power and not trading).
      • Clause 394 attempts to prevent double collection by excluding authorised dealer collection where the seller has collected on related receipts; it also disapplies collection where the buyer has deducted tax under other provisions.
      • The Bill provides limited definitional guidance (forest produce) and leaves procedural prescriptions (forms, manner) to rules/regulations ("as prescribed").
      • Practical compliance will require robust documentation of debits/receipts, declarations, and coordination where multiple collection/deduction provisions could apply.
      • Specific administrative timelines and an additional exemption (education loan LRS remittances) appear in the enacted text but are absent or less developed in the Bill-version, underscoring the importance of reading the enacted section and corrigenda.

      Full Text:

      Section 394 Collection of tax at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax