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
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
    Penalties for Reporting Non-Compliance by Resident constituent entity of an international group unde...
    Legal Implications of Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements : Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Strengthening Transfer Pricing Enforcement : Clause 457 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 271...
    Compliance and Penalty Mechanisms for Investment Funds under Indian Tax Law : Clause 456 of the Inco...
    Penalties for Inaccurate Financial Reporting under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 455 of the Income ...
    Penalties for Non-Compliance in Financial Transaction Reporting : Clause 454 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Penalty Provisions for Non-compliant Loan Repayments in India's Income Tax Law : Clause 453 of the I...
    Mandatory Electronic Payments and Penalty Regimes : Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Evolving Penalty Regimes for Monetary Transaction Violations : Clause 451 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
❯❯
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
    Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
    Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
    Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
    Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
    Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
    Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
    Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
    A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
    Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
    Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
    Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
    Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reporting penalties: new clause preserves escalating daily fines and a large fixed penalty for inaccurate international tax reports.
    Clause 459 establishes a tiered penalty regime under section 511 for reporting entities: daily penalties for failure to furnish reports, daily penalties for failure to produce information after the allowed period, an escalated daily penalty if default continues after service of a penalty order, and a substantial fixed penalty for furnishing inaccurate information or failing to correct known or discovered inaccuracies. The prescribed authority under section 511 is empowered to impose these penalties, and the clause mirrors Section 271GB in quantum and triggers while raising issues about reasonable cause relief and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to report transfers of management or control triggers significant compliance and enforcement consequences.
    Clause 458 creates a penalty for failure by an Indian concern to furnish information or documents under section 506, authorising the prescribed income-tax authority to impose either a transaction-value-based penalty where a transaction effects a direct or indirect transfer of management or control, or a fixed monetary penalty otherwise, and otherwise mirrors the substantive framework and enforcement objectives of Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing documentation penalty: failure to furnish documents leads to transaction value based penalties and enforcement by tax authorities.
    Failure to furnish prescribed transfer pricing information or documentation for international or specified domestic transactions triggers a transaction value based penalty under Clause 457, enforceable by the Assessing Officer, authorised Transfer Pricing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals); the clause ties this enforcement directly to the obligations in section 171(2) and raises interpretive issues concerning the meaning of failure, computation of transaction value, overlap with other penalties, and the availability of a reasonable cause defence.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish statements: eligible investment funds face a fixed sanction under the bill; authority may impose it.
    Clause 456 imposes a fixed penalty where an eligible investment fund fails to furnish required statements or information within the prescribed time; the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of the fixed sanction. The reporting deadline is set by the substantive eligibility reporting provision; the penalty is discretionary rather than automatic, lacks a graded scale, and does not expressly specify procedural safeguards such as criteria for discretion or an opportunity to be heard.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for inaccurate financial reporting imposes institutional and account-holder liability while enabling recovery of penalties from account holders.
    Clause 455 mandates penalties for persons required to furnish statements of financial transactions or reportable accounts for providing inaccurate information or failing to meet due diligence obligations, and imposes an additional per-account penalty on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies stem from account-holder-supplied false information; reporting institutions may recover such additional penalties from the responsible account holders by direct recovery or retention of funds, with imposition directed by the prescribed income-tax authority and substantive continuity with the former Section 271FAA.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for failure to furnish financial transaction statements - escalating daily sanctions for continued non-compliance after notice.
    Clause 454 creates a statutory penalty regime for failure to furnish a statement of financial transaction or reportable account, prescribing a daily penalty accruing from the date the filing deadline lapses, with an escalated daily rate where default continues after a formal notice, and vesting discretionary imposition authority in the income-tax authority subject to procedural safeguards and rights to challenge.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty for non-compliant loan repayments: Assessing Officer may impose a penalty equal to the amount repaid for procedural breaches.
    Clause 453 permits the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to any loan, deposit or specified advance repaid in contravention of section 188, applying to all persons and covering repayments made by non-transparent modes. The provision creates strict liability based on procedural breach rather than mens rea, centralizes enforcement with the Assessing Officer, and omits an explicit reasonable-cause defence, raising potential interpretative and transitional issues regarding the scope of specified advances and procedural safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic payment mandate triggers daily penalties for non compliance unless a taxpayer proves good and sufficient reason.
    Clause 452 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed per day monetary penalty for failure to provide prescribed electronic modes of payment under section 187, subject to a saving where the person proves good and sufficient reason for the failure; the provision mirrors the former section 271DB framework but streamlines authority and lacks detailed procedural guidance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary transaction penalty: discretion to impose a penalty equal to prohibited receipt unless good and sufficient reasons are proved.
    Clause 451 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received in contravention of section 186 unless the recipient proves good and sufficient reasons; the provision emphasises proportionality, vests discretion in enforcement, omits explicit procedural safeguards and mens rea, and mirrors the substantive penalty quantum and defence in the earlier statutory regime while differing in statutory tone and procedural concision.

    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 395 "Certificates." 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 395 Certificates.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The Document under commentary is Clause 395 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Certificates." It sets out procedures for applications to the Assessing Officer for certificates permitting lower deduction or collection of tax at source, and for issuance of certificates evidencing deduction/collection. It matters to payees, payors, buyers/licensees/lessees, employers and non-residents; the effective date or enactment timing is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: the provision is part of the Chapter dealing with "Deduction and collection at source" in the Income Tax Bill, 2025. The clause provides a statutory mechanism for obtaining certificates from the Assessing Officer that alter the rate or quantum at which tax is deducted or collected at source. The clause contains five sub-sections that address (1) payee applications for lower deduction, (2) special procedure for payments to non-residents (proportionate determination), (3) applications by buyers/licensees/lessees for lower collection, (4) mandatory issuance of certificates by deductors/collectors (and employer-specific certificate requirements), and (5) cancellation of AO-issued certificates. Definitions of terms used in the clause (for example, "Assessing Officer", "payee", "person responsible for paying") are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause applies where tax is required to be deducted or collected under the Chapter. Key ingredients: (i) an eligible applicant (payee; buyer/licensee/lessee; person responsible for paying to a non-resident) may apply to the Assessing Officer; (ii) the application must be made "in such form and manner as prescribed"; (iii) the Assessing Officer must be "satisfied" about the applicant's total income justifying a lower deduction/collection (or in the case of the Bill, a "lower deduction" / "lower collection"); (iv) the AO may issue a certificate specifying the rate at which tax shall be deducted/collected "till its validity"; (v) for certain payments to non-residents (other than salary), the payer may seek a determination of the proportion of the sum chargeable to tax, and tax is to be deducted only on that proportion; (vi) persons deducting/collecting must issue certificates to deductees/collectees specifying amount, rate and other prescribed particulars within prescribed period; and (vii) the AO may cancel issued certificates after giving reasonable opportunity.

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a legislative intent to provide administrative relief and certainty to withholding and collection regimes by enabling assessment-level certificates that modify withholding/collection obligations. The recurring phrase "subject to the rules made under this Act" and "in such form and manner as prescribed" evidences that detailed procedure, forms, timelines and the content of certificates are intended to be governed by delegated legislation (rules/notifications). The AO's power is conditioned on satisfaction as to the payee's/collectee's income which implies an income-driven standard for relief. The Bill focuses on "lower" deduction/collection; it does not expressly contemplate "no deduction" relief in the operative phrase, which may inform a narrower interpretive approach unless clarified by rules.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No explicit exceptions or provisos are set out besides the parenthetical exclusion in sub-section (2) that excludes salary from the non-resident proportionate-determination procedure. Temporal limits, validity periods, appeal mechanisms, or conditions for issuance (other than AO satisfaction) are Not stated in the document and are left to prescribed rules.

      Illustrations

      • Illustration 1: A resident payee who anticipates low total income applies to the AO for a certificate for lower deduction on interest receipts. If the AO is satisfied, a certificate is issued specifying a reduced withholding rate which the payer must apply until the certificate expires. (This is consistent with clause text.)
      • Illustration 2: A buyer procuring goods who is statutorily liable to collect tax at source believes its total income justifies collection at a lower rate; it applies to the AO and, upon satisfaction, obtains a certificate specifying the lower collection rate to be applied during the certificate's validity. (This follows clause (3).)
      • Illustration 3: A payer to a non-resident (other than salary) considers that only a portion of a payment is taxable; it applies for a determination of the chargeable proportion, and tax is withheld only on the determined taxable proportion. (This paraphrases clause (2).)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly defers details to rules under the Act ("subject to the rules made under this Act", "in such form and manner as prescribed", "as prescribed"). Interaction with other provisions in the Chapter is implied (references to section 392 and 393 appear elsewhere in the Chapter), but cross-references or procedural interlocks (appeal to AO, review, scope of AO's satisfaction, or relation to assessment proceedings) are Not stated in the document. The clause imposes obligations on persons responsible for deduction/collection that will operate in conjunction with other statutory provisions on tax payment, return filing and crediting; specifics of those interactions are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Document 1 (Section 395 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) and Document 2 (Clause 395 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version))

      • Document 1 (Act) expressly permits the payee to apply for "deduction of income-tax at a lower rate or no deduction of income-tax, as the case may be" (i.e., includes expressly the possibility of no deduction). Document 2 (Bill) refers only to application "for deduction of tax at a lower rate" (no explicit reference to "no deduction").
        • Practical impact: The Act text broadens the express relief available to payees to include certificates for nil deduction; the Bill text is narrower on its face and may be read as not authorising certificates of nil deduction. This affects taxpayers seeking a certificate for no deduction - under the Bill text that position is not explicitly available.
      • Terminology consistency: Document 1 consistently uses "income-tax" and "income or sum" and in sub-section (2) refers to "any sum as mentioned in section 393(2) (Table: Sl. No. 17)". Document 2 uses "tax" and in sub-section (2) says "any sum chargeable under this Act (other than salary)".
        • Practical impact: The Act version narrows the cross-reference to a specific table entry (section 393(2) Table Sl. No. 17) while the Bill uses a broader phrase but excludes salary expressly. Depending on interpretation, the Act's wording may limit the special procedure to the specific listed sum; the Bill may appear broader but excludes salary. This difference can affect which non-resident payments qualify for the proportionate determination procedure.
      • Sub-section (1)(b) standard of satisfaction: Document 1 states the Assessing Officer is to be "satisfied that the total income of the payee justifies deduction of income-tax at a lower rate or no deduction of income-tax"; Document 2 states the AO is to be "satisfied that the total income of the payee justifies a lower deduction".
        • Practical impact: The Act text reiterates both lower rate and nil deduction as possible outcomes; the Bill text only contemplates a lower deduction. The practical standard of satisfaction is similar but the outcome set contemplated differs.
      • Sub-section (2) scope and wording differences: Document 1 sub-section (2)(a) refers to "any sum as mentioned in section 393(2) (Table: Sl. No. 17)"; Document 2 refers to "any sum chargeable under this Act (other than salary)". Document 1's (2)(a) includes prescribed form and manner "where he considers that the whole of such sum would not be chargeable"; Document 2 similar but adds "(other than salary)".
        • Practical impact: The Act text ties the provision to a specific listed sum (Table Sl. No. 17) whereas the Bill text appears to target any sum chargeable (excluding salary). This can change which categories of non-resident receipts can seek proportionate determination for withholding purposes.
      • Typographical/grammatical variations: Document 2 has a stray duplicated semicolon in sub-section (3)(a) ("and;") and slightly different phrasing like "such income or amount" vs "such income or sum". Document 1 cleans up some language and explicitly includes "no income-tax" phrasing in (1)(c) and "(3)(c)".
        • Practical impact: Minor; Act wording is clearer and more explicit on nil deduction/collection and on the objects to which the certificate may apply.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Persons responsible for deducting/collecting must implement processes to accept and act upon AO-issued certificates; failure to deduct/collect at the certified rate may attract liability. Payees/collectees seeking relief must ensure accurate disclosure of total income to the AO since the AO's satisfaction is income-based. The Bill text's omission of explicit authorization for "nil deduction" certificates may create additional risk or administrative friction for taxpayers seeking complete exemption from deduction unless rules clarify otherwise.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause requires issuers of certificates (deductors/collectors and employers) to issue documentary certificates specifying amounts and rates within prescribed periods; accordingly, taxpayers should retain certificate copies, AO orders, correspondence, and records demonstrating reliance on certificates and corresponding withholding/collection actions. Specific retention periods and form content are Not stated in the document and are expected to be prescribed.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 395 establishes an AO-based certificate mechanism to vary withholding/collection rates where the AO is satisfied about the applicant's total income.
      • It provides a special procedure for payers to non-residents (excluding salary in the Bill) to determine the proportion of sums chargeable and limit withholding accordingly.
      • Deductors/collectors and certain employers must issue certificates to deductees/collectees specifying amounts, rates and other prescribed particulars within prescribed periods.
      • Details of forms, manner, validity, timelines and other procedural rules are left to subordinate legislation and are not specified in the clause.
      • The Bill text does not expressly mention certificates for "no deduction" (nil deduction), which narrows the express relief compared with later Act wording that does include nil deduction; this may affect taxpayers seeking complete exemption from withholding unless clarified by rules.
      • The Assessing Officer may cancel issued certificates after giving reasonable opportunity; grounds and procedure for cancellation beyond opportunity to be heard are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 395 Certificates.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax