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
    Amendment of assessments in cases where appellate proceedings result in a change in the assessment o...
    Procedural Mechanisms for Executing Supreme Court Cost Awards under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 3...
    Doctrine of No Automatic Stay in Tax Recovery : Clause 369, Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 265, I...
    Creating a schemes for the faceless effect of orders, to reducing direct interactions between taxpay...
    From Faceless Revision to Comprehensive Reform : Clause 532 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Administrative Remedies under the Indian Tax Law : Clause 378 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Revisionary Powers under the Income Tax Law : Clause 377 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 26...
    Procedural Safeguards and Judicial Discretion in Supreme Court Appeals : Clause 368 of the Income Ta...
    Certification and Access to the Supreme Court : Clause 367 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Majority Decision and Bench Strength : Clause 366 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 260B of Incom...
    High Court Appeals under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 365 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Procedural Autonomy and Judicial Independence in Tax Appeals : Clause 364 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Rectification, Stay, and Finality: Dissecting the Tribunal's Role : Clause 363 of Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Reforming the Appellate Process : Clause 362 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 253 of the Inc...
    Tribunal Independence and Service Conditions : Clause 361(2) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Sectio...
    Transformation of Tribunal Administration in Indian Tax Law : Clause 361(1), (3) to (5) of the Incom...
    Legal Framework and Practical Impact of Appellate Powers in Indian Taxation: : Clause 360 of the Inc...
    Continuity and Change in Income Tax Appellate Procedures : Clause 359 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Procedure and Limitation for Tax Appeals : Clause 358 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 249 o...
    Redefining Appellate Jurisdiction in Indian Tax Law : Clause 357 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
❯❯
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
    Consequential amendment of member assessments: appellate modification must trigger authorised adjustments to individual tax liabilities.
    Clause 371 requires that when appellate proceedings alter or direct a new assessment of a body of individuals or association of persons, the appellate authority must authorise the Assessing Officer to amend or make a fresh assessment of any member; the authorisation is mandatory, and the Assessing Officer may act only pursuant to that order. The clause modernises appellate references and retains the two-step mechanism while raising interpretive issues concerning the scope of "any member", timelines for action, and the definition of "fresh assessment".
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Execution of Supreme Court cost orders: High Courts may transmit awards for local enforcement under established execution rules.
    The High Court, on petition, may transmit an order of the Supreme Court awarding costs to any court subordinate to the High Court for execution; the provision is limited to cost-related orders, is discretionary in application, requires adherence to execution rules and the Code of Civil Procedure, and mirrors the predecessor provision, leaving unresolved questions about the scope of "costs," appropriate subordinate fora, and special procedures where a government entity is the judgment debtor.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    No automatic stay on tax recovery: assessed tax remains payable during appellate pendency unless a specific judicial stay is granted.
    Clause 369 requires that tax determined by an assessment order is payable despite the filing of an appeal to the High Court or Supreme Court, reflecting the No Automatic Stay principle that assessment orders remain enforceable unless a competent forum grants a specific stay; it narrows scope to appeals at the highest judicial levels, streamlines language compared with Section 265, and places onus on taxpayers to obtain interim relief if they seek to defer payment while preserving courts' discretion to grant stays subject to conditions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless tax administration expanded: scheme-making power permits executive modification of tax law subject to parliamentary laying.
    Clause 532 grants the Central Government power to notify schemes for any purpose of the Income Tax Act, 2025 to eliminate taxpayer interface and optimize resources, and to direct that Act provisions may be excluded or modified for scheme implementation; notifications must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and existing faceless schemes under the 1961 Act may be amended to ensure continuity.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to frame schemes expands executive authority to implement faceless, centralized tax administration with parliamentary oversight.
    Clause 532 authorizes the Central Government to notify schemes for any purpose under the Income Tax Act, permit notification based exceptions or adaptations of statutory provisions to implement those schemes, amend or continue existing schemes, and requires that such notifications be laid before both Houses of Parliament, thereby enabling faceless, centralized, and technology driven administration while raising concerns about the breadth of delegated legislative power and the indeterminate standard of technological feasibility.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary jurisdiction prevents orders prejudicial to the assessee while ensuring timely administrative review and minimum processing time.
    Clause 378 empowers senior tax officials as the Competent Authority to revise subordinate orders suo motu or on application, provided any revision is not prejudicial to the assessee. It prescribes one year limitation periods for initiation, allows condonation for sufficient cause, requires a nominal application fee, mandates disposal within a year from the end of the financial year of filing with specified exclusions for rehearings and judicial stays, and introduces a minimum sixty day residual period after exclusions for completion of revision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary power: Competent Authority can revise orders prejudicial to revenue after hearing and within limitation.
    Clause 377 empowers a defined Competent Authority to call for and examine the record of proceedings and, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and making necessary inquiry, to revise orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue by enhancing, modifying, cancelling or directing fresh assessments, including specified transfer pricing orders; it sets a two year limitation subject to exceptions to give effect to appellate directions and excludes certain periods from the limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appeals to Supreme Court: new bill mirrors CPC procedure but omits a saving proviso, raising interpretive risk.
    Clause 368 adopts the Code of Civil Procedure procedures for appeals to the Supreme Court "so far as may be", vests the Court with discretion on costs, and mandates that where a High Court judgment is varied or reversed, effect be given to the Supreme Court's order through the Bill's prescribed execution mechanism. The saving phrase and the absence of an express proviso preserving other reference and stay provisions are central interpretive and practical concerns.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Certification for Supreme Court appeal restricts access to cases presenting substantial legal questions, streamlining appellate tax litigation.
    Clause 367 confines appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court judgments to cases which the High Court certifies as fit for appeal and reframes the source of such appeals to judgments delivered on appeals under section 363, streamlining the previous reference/appeal bifurcation and maintaining a high certification threshold to limit review to substantial questions of law or issues of public importance.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Multi-judge bench requirement ensures collective resolution of contested legal points in tax appeals under the new bill.
    Clause 366 mandates a multi-judge bench requirement for specified tax appeals, directing that matters be heard by not less than two judges and decided according to the majority opinion; if no majority arises, judges must state the precise point of law in dispute, the point is reheard by additional judges, and the final decision on that point is determined by the majority of all judges who have heard the case.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Substantial question of law: High Court appeals limited to legal issues, streamlining tax appellate review and implementation.
    Clause 365 permits appeals to the High Court from Appellate Tribunal orders only when the High Court is satisfied a substantial question of law arises; it prescribes eligible appellants, a time-limited memorandum-based filing, condonation for sufficient cause, High Court formulation and limitation of the question(s) heard (with power to add questions for recorded reasons), reasoned judgments with costs, authority to decide issues not determined or wrongly decided by the Tribunal, application of Civil Procedure rules, and an express duty on the Assessing Officer to give effect to the High Court's judgment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural autonomy preserved in appellate tribunal; statutory cross references modernized while e governance provisions omitted, affecting bench practice.
    Clause 364 maintains the President's authority to constitute Benches, preserves the dual Judicial and Accountant member default and Special Benches for significant issues, permits single member disposal for lower value matters subject to presidential or authorised member designation, grants the Tribunal procedural autonomy and quasi judicial powers, modernises cross references to new penal and procedural statutes, and omits previous express provisions enabling executive notification of e governance schemes, raising transitional and implementation questions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal Orders: stay limits and rectification rules balance taxpayer rights and revenue protection in the appellate process.
    Clause 363 establishes the Tribunal's authority to decide appeals after hearing parties, permits rectification of mistakes apparent from record within a prescribed period subject to a nominal fee and hearing where liability is increased, and prescribes an aspirational timeline for disposal. It provides a conditional stay-of-recovery regime requiring deposit or security with limited extension criteria and automatic vacation if disposal does not occur within the aggregate period; the Tribunal may award costs, must communicate orders to the assessee and Commissioner, and its orders are final save for specified statutory exceptions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appeals to Appellate Tribunal: modernized scope, uniform timelines, cross-objection rights, fee rationalisation preserved.
    Clause 362 modernizes appeals to the Appellate Tribunal by listing appealable orders across the reorganized administrative hierarchy, prescribing a uniform filing period, permitting respondents to file cross-objections treated as independent appeals, allowing the Tribunal to condone delay for sufficient cause, and setting form, verification and a progressive fee regime while exempting revenue appeals and cross-objections from fees.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal independence: bifurcated appointment and service rules safeguard ITAT members' conditions and transitional rights.
    Clause 361(2) and Section 252A use non obstante language to govern ITAT members' qualifications, appointments, term, salaries, allowances, resignation and removal by bifurcating applicable regimes: post Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 appointees are governed by Chapter II of that Act (detailing qualifications, a Search cum Selection Committee, tenure and service conditions), while pre Finance Act, 2017 appointees remain governed by the Income tax Act, 1961 and its rules as if the contested Finance Act provision had not come into force.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appellate tribunal constitution updated to centralize appointments and delegate presidential powers, affecting tribunal independence and transitional safeguards.
    Clause 361 maintains a multi member Appellate Tribunal of Judicial and Accountant Members while empowering the Central Government to determine member strength; mandates that the President be a High Court judge with substantial judicial experience or a Vice President; permits appointment of one or more Vice Presidents; and authorizes delegation of presidential powers to Vice Presidents by written order. The clause defers detailed eligibility and service conditions to the general tribunal framework and includes a transitional rule preserving pre existing service conditions for incumbents.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appellate Powers: authority to modify assessments and penalties subject to a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
    The appellate authorities may confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul assessments and may confirm, cancel, or vary penalty orders; the Commissioner (Appeals) alone may set aside assessments and remit for fresh assessment in specified cases. Any enhancement of assessment or penalty or reduction of refund requires a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to show cause. The appellate authority may consider and decide any matter arising from the proceedings, and must take into account materials produced before the Settlement Commission where proceedings abate.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appeal procedure: preservation of right to be heard, reasoned orders, and discretionary powers for inquiry and additional grounds.
    Clause 359 sets the appellate procedure before first instance tax authorities, affirming the right to be heard, notice of hearing, powers to adjourn and direct further inquiry, discretion to admit additional grounds of appeal if omission was not wilful or unreasonable, a requirement for written reasoned orders specifying points for determination and decisions, a directory timeline aiming at one year disposal where possible, and communication of orders to the assessee and appropriate senior tax officials.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appeal procedure: prescribed form, 30 day limitation, pre deposit requirement with written reason exemptions permitted.
    Clause 358 preserves the Section 249 appellate framework by requiring appeals in prescribed form and verification, imposing a graded appeal fee related to assessed income, and setting a thirty day limitation from service of the order or demand. It excludes time spent on specified relief applications from limitation, permits condonation of delay for sufficient cause, and conditions admission on payment of tax on returned income or advance tax where no return is filed, while allowing written reason exemptions from the advance payment requirement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appellate jurisdiction redefined: Clause 357 sets scope of appealable tax orders and preserves DRP-related exclusions.
    Clause 357 defines the orders appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals), listing assessment, reassessment, recomputation, intimation adjustments, orders treating a person as agent of a non-resident, and penalty orders, while preserving exclusions for orders following Dispute Resolution Panel directions and allowing the Board to specify additional appealable cases; it updates and consolidates categories previously under Section 246A and raises interpretive issues concerning exclusions, newly numbered sections, penalty consolidation, and transitional treatment of pending appeals.

    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 456 "Penalty for failure to furnish statement or information or document by an eligible investment fund." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      16 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 456 Penalty for failure to furnish statement or information or document by an eligible investment fund.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

        At a Glance

        This provision imposes a fixed penalty on an "eligible investment fund" that fails to furnish a required statement, information or document. It matters to investment funds and the income-tax department because it creates a mandatory monetary sanction for non-compliance with specified reporting obligations. The effective date or enactment date is Not stated in the document.

        Background & Scope

        Statutory hooks: Clause 456 (Bill version) links the penalty to obligations u/s 9(12)(e) [section 9A(5)]. Section 456 (Act version) links the penalty to paragraph 4 of Schedule I. Both provisions concern penalties for eligible investment funds that fail to furnish statements/information/documents. Definitions or explanations of "eligible investment fund" or the content/timing of the statement are Not stated in the document. The provision is placed under the heading "PENALTIES" in both sources.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        Coverage: The provision applies to "any eligible investment fund" that is required to furnish a statement or any information or document under the referenced provision (Clause: section 9(12)(e) [section 9A(5)]; Section: paragraph 4 of Schedule I). The penalty is a fixed sum of five lakh rupees (Rs.500000). The income-tax authority prescribed under the referenced provision is empowered to "direct that such fund shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five lakh rupees." The trigger element is failure to furnish within the time prescribed under the referenced provision.

        Interpretation

        Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The plain text signals a strict, fixed-quantum sanction intended to ensure compliance by eligible investment funds with reporting obligations. The use of the phrase "may direct" indicates discretion in the prescribed income-tax authority to impose the penalty upon a finding of failure to furnish. There is no express provision in the clause about stages of notice, opportunity to explain, mitigation, or discretionary factors-such procedural or mitigating mechanisms are Not stated in the document. The text ties the imposition to the time prescribed under the referenced provision, so timeliness is the operative compliance parameter.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        No provisos, carve-outs, thresholds, or exceptions appear in the textual extract provided. Any exceptions or conditions (for example, due cause, reasonable cause, or reduction mechanisms) are Not stated in the document.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: An eligible investment fund required by the referenced provision to submit an annual statement by a specified date fails to furnish the statement by that date. Under the provision, the prescribed income-tax authority may direct payment of five lakh rupees as penalty. (Derived strictly from the text.)
        • Example 2: An eligible investment fund provides partial information but omits a required document and does not submit it within the prescribed time. Subject to interpretation of what constitutes "failure to furnish," the prescribed income-tax authority may impose the fixed penalty. (The document does not elaborate on partial compliance or materiality thresholds.)

        Interplay

        Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars mentioned in the document: Not stated in the document. The provision cross-references another statutory provision (sections or schedule) which presumably sets out the detailed reporting obligation and may prescribe the income-tax authority and timelines; however, the content of that provision is Not stated in the document. There is no mention of procedural rules, appeal routes or interaction with general penalty provisions of the Act in the excerpt provided.

        Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

        • Textual placement and cross-reference:Section 456 (Income-tax Act, 2025) refers to "paragraph 4 of Schedule I" as the source of the duty to furnish a statement/information/document; Clause 456 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) refers to "section 9(12)(e) [section 9A (5)]."
          • Practical impact: the operative obligation and the identity of the income-tax authority empowered to impose the penalty are tied to different provisions depending on which text applies. This alters the statutory hook for scope, procedures, timelines and potentially the class of entities captured, depending on how paragraph 4 of Schedule I versus section 9(12)(e)/9A(5) define "eligible investment fund" and reporting requirements. The document does not specify the substantive differences between those cross-referenced provisions. (Not stated in the document.)
        • Authority description: Section 456 says "the income-tax authority prescribed under the said paragraph" while Clause 456 says "the income-tax authority prescribed under the said section."
          • Practical impact: functionally similar language but depends on whether the prescribing provision is in a Schedule or a Section-this may affect interpretive approach to delegated prescription and internal cross-references in the statute. (Not stated in the document whether any different authorities are in fact prescribed.)

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: Eligible investment funds must identify whether they fall within the scope of the referenced reporting provision (section 9(12)(e)/9A(5) or paragraph 4 of Schedule I as applicable) and must ensure timely submission of the required statements/information/documents. Non-furnishing within prescribed time may attract a fixed penalty of five lakh rupees.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: While the provision does not specify records, it implies a need for funds to maintain clear evidence of timely filing and communications with tax authorities (filing receipts, courier/tracking records, email acknowledgements), since timeliness is the key d'eclencheur of the penalty. The document does not prescribe particular forms or documentary standards.

        Key Takeaways

        • The provision creates a fixed monetary penalty (Rs.500,000 / five lakh rupees) for eligible investment funds that fail to furnish required statements/information/documents within prescribed time.
        • The Bill (old version) and the Act text differ primarily in the cross-reference point: the Bill ties the duty to section 9(12)(e)/9A(5), while the Act text ties it to paragraph 4 of Schedule I.
        • The sanction is discretionary ("may direct") in the hands of the prescribed income-tax authority; procedural safeguards (notice, opportunity to explain) are Not stated in the document.
        • No exceptions, mitigating factors, or alternative penalty scales are provided in the excerpt; the penalty is an absolute fixed sum as drafted.
        • Operational effect depends on the substantive scope and timelines in the provision to which this penalty is linked; those substantive details are Not stated in the document.
        • The minor textual differences in numeric versus spelled-out amount do not change the quantum; the crucial change is the statutory cross-reference location.

        Full Text:

        Section 456 Penalty for failure to furnish statement or information or document by an eligible investment fund.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax