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 411 "When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default." 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 411 When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document considered is Clause 411 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default." It sets out the time for payment of tax specified in a notice of demand, consequences of non-payment, interest on unpaid amounts, provisions for instalments and discretion to waive or reduce interest, and special rules on foreign remittance constraints. It primarily affects taxpayers who receive notices of demand and tax authorities involved in collection and recovery. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 411 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sits within Division D - Collection and Recovery, and cross-refers to section 289 (notice of demand) of the same Bill and to the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964 (11 of 1964). It also cross-refers to various sections (287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378) and to section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) for consequences of subsequent orders affecting tax/interest. Definitions: Not stated in the document beyond the references to notices of demand and specified sections; no separate definitional sub-clause is included in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 411 prescribes:

      (1) the time for payment of any amount specified in a notice of demand u/s 289 (except advance tax) - ordinarily within thirty days of service; an Assessing Officer may specify a shorter period with previous approval of the Joint Commissioner when the AO believes allowing the full thirty days would be detrimental to revenue;

      (2) a notice of demand remains valid while related appeal or other proceedings are pending and has the effect accorded by section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964;

      (3) non-payment within the period in (1) attracts simple interest at 1% for every month or part of a month, the period running from the day after the due date until payment;

      (4) no overlapping interest where interest for the same period is charged u/s 398(3) on tax specified in an intimation u/s 399;

      (5) the AO may, on application made before expiry of the due date, extend time or allow instalments subject to conditions;

      (6) where assessments/orders subsequently reduce or increase the taxable amount, corresponding adjustments/refunds or liability for interest follow;

      (7) transitional rule for interest on periods beginning on or before 31 March 1989 and ending after that date-interest for the portion after that date is to be calculated at 1.5% per month;

      (8) the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner may, on application, reduce or waive interest if payment causes genuine hardship, default was due to circumstances beyond control, and the assessee has cooperated in inquiry/proceedings;

      (9) orders accepting or rejecting such applications are to be passed within twelve months from the end of the month in which application is received;

      (10) no rejecting order shall be passed unless the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard;

      (11) failure to pay at the place and to the person mentioned in the notice within specified/extended time renders the assessee in default;

      (12) default in any instalment when instalments are allowed results in deemed default of the whole outstanding amount and other instalments become due on the date of the defaulted instalment;

      (13) the AO may, in his discretion and subject to conditions, treat an assessee presenting an appeal u/s 356 or 357 as not in default in respect of the amount in dispute while the appeal remains undisposed;

      (14) where income arises in a foreign country whose laws prohibit/restrict remittance to India, the AO shall not treat the assessee as in default for the portion that cannot be brought to India and continue to treat as not in default until prohibition is removed;

      (15) for purposes of (14) income is deemed brought into India if utilised for expenditure actually incurred by the assessee outside India or if brought into India in any form whether capitalised or not.

      Interpretation

      The text manifests a legislative design to prioritise prompt collection (30-day rule) while providing limited administrative discretion to shorten the period where revenue interest is acute. The interest regime is simple interest at a uniform 1% per month, subject to statutory exceptions and administrative relief. The Bill recognises the continuing validity of recovery proceedings during appellate processes and incorporates cross-references to validation legislation (1964 Act). The inclusion of the 1989 transitional interest rule indicates an intent (in the Bill) to address historically overlapping regimes; the presence of explicit waiver/reduction criteria and procedural safeguards (timeline, hearing) indicates an intent to balance revenue protection with taxpayer hardship considerations.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs: (i) the Assessing Officer may shorten the payment period with prior Joint Commissioner approval; (ii) waiver/reduction of interest is available under specified hardship/cooperation conditions; (iii) instalment default rules deem full liability on single instalment default; (iv) where foreign law prevents remittance, the AO must not treat the taxpayer as in default for the non-remittable portion and must continue that treatment until removal of the restriction; (v) no duplicate interest where another section levies interest for the same period. Thresholds and forms: Not stated in the document (no prescribed forms or numeric thresholds besides interest rate and 30-day period).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A receives a notice of demand u/s 289 and does not pay within 30 days. Simple interest at 1% per month is chargeable from day 31 until payment. If A applied before day 30 for instalments and defaulted on one instalment later, the entire outstanding becomes due on the date of default. (All elements drawn from the text.)
      • Example 2: Taxpayer B receives notice but files an appeal in respect of the amount; the notice remains valid during disposal by the last appellate authority and retains the continuing effect under the 1964 Act. (From the text.)
      • Example 3: Taxpayer C has income in a country that legally prohibits remittance; the Assessing Officer must not treat C as in default for the portion that cannot be brought into India and should continue that non-default treatment until the restriction is lifted. (From the text.)

      Interplay

      Clause 411 expressly cross-refers to section 289 (notice of demand), sections 356/357 (appeals), numerous assessment/revision/rectification sections (287, 288, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378) and settlement provisions (section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961), and invokes section 3 of the Taxation Laws (Continuation and Validation of Recovery Proceedings) Act, 1964. This creates direct interplay between assessment outcomes and interest/collection consequences. No additional rules, notifications or forms are specified in the Clause itself. Any detailed procedural aspects-e.g., format of application for instalments or for waiver-are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Transitional interest-rate provision:Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) contains a specific transitional provision at sub-section (7) providing that for any period commencing on or before 31st March, 1989 and ending after that date, interest under sub-section (3) shall, in respect of so much of such period as falls after that date, be calculated at 1.5% per month (Bill: sub-section (7)). The enacted Section 411 text (Income-tax Act, 2025) does not contain this transitional sub-section; instead there is no equivalent historical-rate rule.
        • Practical impact: removal of the historic 1.5% transitional rate means no special higher rate for periods crossing 31 March 1989 is retained in the enacted provision. This is a substantive deletion in the Bill->Act progression. The practical effect is confined to legacy periods; the documents do not state any retroactivity, savings or transitional arrangement beyond the deleted clause.
      • Placement and numbering of waiver/reduction power: In the Bill the discretionary power to reduce or waive interest (subject to conditions) is located at sub-section (8) with accompanying procedural requirements at (9)-(10). In the enacted Section 411 the power to reduce or waive interest appears at sub-section (7) and the procedural timeline and hearing requirements are at (8)-(9).
        • Practical impact: this is a renumbering and slight re-sequencing in the enacted text; substantively the power and its safeguards (timeline for decision, right to be heard) remain present. The document texts do not indicate any change in the scope of the power or different conditions beyond wording variations.
      • Minor drafting and phraseology changes: Examples include (1)(b) where the Bill uses "such lesser period" while the Act uses "such period being a period less than thirty days"; and (3)(a) where the Act adds "comprised in the period" to the description of the monthly interest calculation.
        • Practical impact: these are drafting/clarifying edits. They do not, on their face, change the operative mechanics (30-day default period; 1% simple monthly interest) but may affect interpretive clarity on temporal scope of interest calculation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: strict 30-day compliance window for payment of notices of demand (subject to permitted shortening by AO with Joint Commissioner approval); exposure to simple interest at 1% per month from day after due date until payment; risk of acceleration of full outstanding amount on instalment default; potential continued liability during appellate proceedings since notices remain valid pending disposal.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: taxpayers should retain and produce applications for extension or instalments, evidence supporting hardship or circumstances beyond their control when seeking waiver, proof of cooperation in inquiries, and documentary evidence demonstrating inability to repatriate foreign income where applicable. Specific procedural forms/timelines beyond the twelve-month decision deadline for waiver/reduction orders are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Ordinary payment period for a notice of demand is 30 days; AO may shorten this only with prior Joint Commissioner approval.
      • Non-payment attracts simple interest at 1% per month (or part) from the day after the due date until payment; overlapping interest u/s 398(3) is excluded.
      • On application before due date, AO may extend time or allow instalments; default on any instalment results in deemed default of whole outstanding amount.
      • The Bill includes a transitional rule applying 1.5% monthly interest for periods crossing 31 March 1989; this is present in the Bill text reviewed but may differ in later enactment (see comparative analysis above).
      • The designated Commissioners have power to reduce or waive interest where hardship, circumstances beyond control, and cooperation are established; decision on such application must be made within twelve months from the end of the month of receipt and the assessee must be heard before rejection.
      • Notwithstanding appeals, notices of demand remain valid during pendency and have effect as per the 1964 validation Act.
      • Where foreign law restricts remittance, the AO shall not treat the non-remittable portion as in default and must maintain non-default treatment until restrictions are lifted.

      Full Text:

      Section 411 When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax