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 423 "Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income." 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 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document compared: Section 423 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as appearing in the enacted Act) and Clause 423 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (the Bill text supplied). Both texts deal with interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. The provisions affect taxpayers required to furnish returns, and the income-tax department in calculating and demanding interest. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 423 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (hereinafter "Clause 423 (Bill)"). Subject matter: interest chargeable for defaults in furnishing return of income. Coverage: outlines when simple interest at the rate implicit in the formula I = 1% x A x T becomes payable, defines the starting and ending dates for computation across specified circumstances, prescribes treatment where post-assessment orders alter tax, and defines components included in "tax paid". Definitions or explanations provided in the text: limited to the formula and the Table; the Bill supplies a definition of "tax paid" in sub-section (4)(d) with enumerated items (i)-(vii). No separate definitions section is provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 423 imposes simple interest for defaults in furnishing a return of income. The interest is computed by the formula I = 1% x A x T, where A is the "amount of tax on which interest is payable" (as specified in sub-section (2)) and T is the number of months comprised in the period commencing on the day after the "starting date" and ending on the "ending date" specified in the Table. Sub-section (2) contains a Table that maps specific circumstances to starting date, ending date and the tax base (A) for interest computation. The Table covers four scenarios: (1) return furnished u/s 263(1), (4) or (6) or in response to a notice u/s 268(1) after the due date; (2) no return furnished under the said sections; (3) return required by a notice under an unspecified section issued after certain determinations and furnished late; and (4) where such a notice requires a return and no return is furnished. Sub-section (3) deals with the consequence of orders (under a list of sections) that increase or reduce the tax base for interest, prescribing issuance of notice of demand in prescribed form where interest increases, and refund of excess interest where interest is reduced. Sub-section (4) contains qualifying notes, including exclusions of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax bases, reduction of interest payable by amounts of interest paid u/s 266, and the detailed meaning of "tax paid". Sub-section (5) treats an assessment made for the first time u/s 279 as a "regular assessment" for purposes of the section.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by the Bill text: to provide a simple, uniform interest formula for late or non-furnishing of returns and to tie the interest computation periods to concrete events (due date, date of furnishing, date of completion of assessment, dates specified in notices). The Table-driven approach indicates an intent to vary the tax base (A) and the start/end dates according to factual circumstances of how and when returns are filed or not filed. The inclusion of a detailed "tax paid" definition shows an intent to net off various prepayments and credits from the tax base when computing interest. The provision for adjustment upon post-assessment orders (sub-section (3)) manifests an intent to align interest levies with the final assessed tax position.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs or qualifications present in the Bill include:

      • Exclusion of additional income-tax u/s 267 from the tax base (4)(a)-(b).
      • Reduction of interest payable by interest already paid u/s 266 (4)(c).
      • Specific items constituting "tax paid" (4)(d)(i)-(vii), which serve as offsets against the tax base for interest calculation.
      • Where an assessment is made for the first time u/s 279, it is to be regarded as a regular assessment (5).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A return filed late in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is the due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of furnishing; A is tax on total income as determined u/s 270(1) (if regular assessment not made) or tax determined under regular assessment, reduced by "tax paid". (All other specifics of amounts and dates Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: No return furnished in response to a notice u/s 268(1). Starting date is due date u/s 263(1); ending date is date of completion of assessment u/s 271; A is tax on total income determined under regular assessment reduced by "tax paid". (Concrete amounts and computation Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 3: Return required by a notice (serial number 3) but furnished after expiry of time allowed under such notice. Starting date is the date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice (Bill text); ending date is date of furnishing; A is amount by which reassessed tax exceeds earlier tax. (The Bill text contains an omission in the cross-reference to the notice section; specifics Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The Bill text expressly references multiple other provisions (sections 263, 268, 270, 271, 279, 280, 266, 267, 287, 288, 289, 359, 363, 365(10), 368, 377, 378, 206). Interplay with those provisions is central to determining starting/ending dates, the tax base (A), and credits. The Bill, as supplied, contains at least one omitted cross-reference (a missing section number in the Table at serial number 3) and a differing cross-reference for the tax credit clause (206(13) vs the multi-paragraph references in the Act). These differences create potential interpretive issues and could require reconciliation with the substantive provisions of the referenced sections; however, the content of those referenced sections is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Starting date for notice-required returns (serial numbers 3 and 4): The enacted Section 423 (Act) uses "The last date of time allowed under such notice" as the starting date for serial numbers 3 and 4. The Clause 423 of Bill (Old Version) uses "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice" (for both serial numbers 3 and 4 in the Bill).
        • Practical impact: shifting the stated starting date by one day will change the counted months (T) in the formula I = 1% x A x T in some cases; whether the difference produces a material change depends on the method of counting months under the section (not further specified in the documents). It can lead to one additional month being counted in some interpretations, thereby increasing interest liability slightly in some cases.
      • Row 3 starting date wording: In the Act text, for serial number 3 the Starting date is "The last date of time allowed under such notice." The Bill text, for serial number 3, states "Date immediately following the last date of time allowed under such notice."
        • Practical impact: same as above; potential to alter the period used for interest computation.
      • Omissions/typographical differences affecting clarity: The Bill's Table entry for serial number 3 contains an apparent omission - "Where return of income is required by a notice u/s issued after..." (the section number is missing). The Act provides the relevant contextual references (Act shows section 280 in related contexts).
      • Practical impact: omission creates ambiguity in the Bill text about which notice provision is referred to; this could cause interpretive uncertainty unless corrected. The Act text does not exhibit that omission in the supplied extract.
      • "Tax paid" definition - tax credit cross-references: The Act's clause (4)(d)(vii) defines "tax paid" to include "any tax credit allowed to be set off as per sections 206(1)(m) to (p) and 206(2)(e) to (h)." The Bill (Old Version) substitutes "(vii) any tax credit allowed to be set off as per section 206(13)."
        • Practical impact: this is a substantive difference in cross-references. If the Bill's singular reference is intended to capture the same set of credits, the drafting does not make that clear. Depending on the actual content of section 206 in the statute (not stated in the document), taxpayers may lose (or gain) certain credits being treated as "tax paid" for interest computation. As the document supplied does not state the content of section 206, the practical effect cannot be fully determined from the text alone.
      • Form of notice of demand: Sub-section (3)(a) in the Act reads "in such form as may be prescribed"; the Bill reads "in the form as prescribed."
        • Practical impact: stylistic/minor drafting difference; both phrases point to prescribed form, but "such form as may be prescribed" is the more conventional legislative formulation. No clear substantive impact in isolation.
      • Other structural/wording differences: Minor variations in punctuation, paragraphing and referential phrases occur across the two texts (for example, use of "the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in such form as may be prescribed specifying the sum payable" vs "shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the form as prescribed specifying the sum payable").
        • Practical impact: primarily drafting and clarity; no express substantive change beyond the items noted above based on the supplied texts.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The precise starting date language (whether the last date of time allowed or the day after that date) will affect calculation of months (T) - which could increase or decrease interest by the formula provided. Taxpayers filing in response to notices should be alert to how the start date is to be computed. Where the Bill's cross-references differ (notably to section 206), taxpayers should verify which tax credits count as "tax paid" for interest computations - the Bill text introduces uncertainty. The omission of a section number in serial number 3 may create avoidable disputes until corrected.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text makes clear that dates of notices, dates of furnishing of returns, dates of completion of assessments and amounts of tax determined at various stages are determinative items. Parties should maintain contemporaneous records showing notice dates, time allowed under notices, dates of filing, assessments and any payments or credits claimed (details of records to be kept Not stated in the document).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 423 (Bill) applies a simple interest formula I = 1% x A x T for defaults in furnishing returns, tying the interest period to specific starting and ending events listed in a Table.
      • There are material drafting differences between the Bill and the enacted Section 423: notably in the exact stated starting dates for notice-driven cases and in the cross-references used to define tax credits included as "tax paid".
      • Shifts in starting date wording (last date vs date immediately following) can alter interest months counted and thus interest liability; the Bill language tends to state the day after, potentially increasing periods in some views.
      • The Bill text contains an omission (missing section reference in serial number 3 of the Table) creating interpretive ambiguity that requires correction or legislative clarification.
      • The Bill lists prescribed mechanisms for adjustment where post-assessment orders alter tax and requires notice of demand or refund accordingly.
      • The provision for reduction of interest by interest already paid u/s 266 and the detailed enumeration of items constituting "tax paid" show an intent to prevent double charging and to net prepayments and credits.

      Full Text:

      Section 423 Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax