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
    Evolution of Appellate Remedies in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 356 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Appellate Remedies against Advance Rulings : Clause 389 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Evolution of Procedural Regulation in Advance Rulings under Indian Tax Law : Clause 388 of Income Ta...
    The Transformation of Advance Rulings Powers under Indian Tax Law : Clause 387 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Fraud, Misrepresentation, and the Void Ab Initio Doctrine in Advance Rulings : Clause 386 of the Inc...
    Jurisdictional Bar on Parallel Proceedings : Clause 385 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Procedure for processing applications for advance rulings in the Indian tax regime : Clause 384 of t...
    Procedural Evolution of Advance Ruling Applications : Clause 383 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Legal Insights on Vacancies and Defects in Advance Ruling Bodies : Clause 382 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Administrative Efficiency vs. Judicial Oversight : Clause 381 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Changing Landscape of Advance Rulings in Indian Tax Law : Clause 380 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Evolving ADR Mechanisms in Indian Taxation : Clause 379 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Set-off and Withholding of Tax Refunds : Clause 438 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245 of ...
    Change in the Interest on Tax Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 437 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Limits on Challenging Completed Assessments in Refund Proceedings : Clause 436 of Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Automatic Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 435 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Procedural and Substantive Aspects of TDS Refunds : Clause 434 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Limitation, Procedure, and Rights of Refund Claims in Indian Tax Law : Clause 433 of the Income Tax ...
    Refund Entitlement in Special Cases (Death, Incapacity, Insolvency, Liquidation, or Other Causes) : ...
    Statutory Safeguards for Taxpayer Refunds : Clause 431 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 237 of I...
❯❯
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
    Appellate scope reform consolidates appealable orders, enables faceless appeals and transfers while preserving rehearing safeguards.
    Clause 356 prescribes an exhaustive list of appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), defines "status" by cross reference, prohibits appeals where orders are passed by or with approval of authorities above Deputy Commissioner, and empowers the Board to transfer appeals between JCIT(A) and Commissioner (Appeals) with a mandated opportunity of rehearing. It formally enables a government notified faceless disposal scheme-permitting elimination of physical interface and modification of procedural provisions-and authorizes the Board to exclude specified cases or classes from the section's operation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of appeal to High Court preserves judicial review over advance rulings with limited condonation and streamlined procedure.
    Clause 389 grants a statutory right of appeal to the High Court against rulings or orders of the Board for Advance Rulings and certain Assessing Officer actions, mandates filing in the prescribed form and manner within a limited period, allows judicial condonation for a short additional interval, omits prior executive scheme-making and modification powers, and relies on Rule 44FA to integrate appeal procedure with jurisdictional High Court practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural autonomy for advance rulings enables the Board to set its own procedures, heightening calls for transparency and safeguards.
    Clause 388 vests the Board for Advance Rulings with broad power to regulate its own procedure, subject to the relevant Chapter, enabling the Board to prescribe filing rules, hearing modes, timelines, evidence protocols, order formats and confidentiality mechanisms, while the institutional shift from a quasi judicial Authority to an administrative Board raises concerns about explicit natural justice safeguards, transparency, consistency and the scope of judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance Rulings powers modernisation clarifies BAR's quasi judicial authority and civil court powers under reformed procedural codes.
    Clause 387 modernises the powers and status of the Board for Advance Rulings by vesting it with civil court powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, receive affidavit evidence and exercise other adjudicatory functions, and by deeming its proceedings to be judicial proceedings that attract penal consequences for perjury and related offences, while limiting the civil court status to specified purposes and aligning cross references with reformed procedural and penal codes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Void ab initio of advance rulings: fraud or misrepresentation may nullify rulings and restore ordinary tax provisions.
    Clause 386 empowers the Board for Advance Rulings to declare an advance ruling void ab initio if found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, on representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise; the Act is to apply as if no ruling had been made (excluding the period the ruling was in force), and a copy of the order must be sent to the applicant and the tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional bar on parallel proceedings preserves advance rulings' exclusivity for resident applicants and prevents conflicting adjudication.
    Clause 385 imposes a jurisdictional bar barring income tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal from deciding any issue for which a resident has filed an advance ruling application; the prohibition attaches on filing and pertains only to the specific issue raised, thereby preserving the exclusivity and predictability of the advance ruling mechanism while raising interpretive questions about the definition of "issue" and the treatment of pending proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure secures binding tax guidance with hearing rights, grounds for rejection, and mandatory communication.
    Clause 384 requires the Board for Advance Rulings to forward applications to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, call for records, and after examination either allow or reject applications. Rejection must follow an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, and orders must be communicated to the applicant and tax authorities. Mandatory exclusions include pending proceedings, fair market value determinations, and transactions prima facie designed for tax avoidance; if allowed, the Board must examine further material, hear the applicant or authorised representative, and pronounce a written ruling within the prescribed time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure: streamlined application process with prescribed form, quadruplicate filing, fee and a thirty day withdrawal window.
    Clause 383 establishes a streamlined procedure for advance rulings: applications must state the specific question and be filed in the prescribed form and manner in quadruplicate, accompanied by a prescribed fee, and may be withdrawn within thirty days. The clause retains core procedural features of the prior regime but omits transitional and legacy transfer or opt-out provisions, leaving form, fee, and certain consequences of withdrawal to subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Vacancies and defects immunity preserves validity of advance rulings to prevent collateral challenges and ensure procedural continuity.
    Clause 382 stipulates that no proceeding before, or pronouncement of an advance ruling by, the Board for Advance Rulings shall be questioned or invalidated merely because of any vacancy or defect in the Board's constitution. It applies to both procedural actions and final rulings, reflects the de facto validity principle, and is intended to secure continuity, legal certainty, and protection against collateral procedural challenges, while not extending to defects that negate jurisdiction or involve fraud or bias.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Board for Advance Rulings centralizes administrative advance rulings, prioritizing efficiency but raising independence and legal robustness concerns.
    Clause 381 mandates constitution of one or more Board for Advance Rulings by notification, each comprising two members who are serving tax officers of not below Chief Commissioner rank, nominated by the Board; the provision preserves an administrative, officer-led model akin to the existing framework and emphasizes mandatory establishment, flexibility in number and phased operationalization, while leaving nomination criteria, judicial representation, publication, and appellate design unspecified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling mechanism provides pre transactional tax certainty and access controls for cross border and GAAR related issues.
    Clause 380 defines advance ruling across five categories: rulings for non resident applicants; rulings on transactions between residents and non residents; rulings for specified resident applicants; rulings on computation of total income pending before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal; and rulings on whether proposed arrangements are impermissible avoidance arrangements; it links applications to the Bill's procedural section and replaces the Authority with a Board for Advance Rulings, while preserving notification based resident eligibility.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Committee provides an opt-in ADR path reducing penalties and granting prosecution immunity for minor tax disputes.
    Clause 379 creates an opt in Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve minor tax disputes by allowing modification of assessment variations, reduction or waiver of penalties, and grant of immunity from prosecution, with Assessing Officers required to implement DRC directions within a prescribed short timeframe; eligibility is confined by a monetary ceiling on variations, exclusions for search/survey or international information cases, and an income threshold as reported in returns, while procedural details and disqualifications are to be prescribed in subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Set-off of tax refunds: authority to adjust refunds against outstanding dues with written intimation and time limited withholding.
    Clause 438 authorises specified tax officers to set off any refund due against sums remaining payable by the taxpayer, subject to mandatory written intimation. If assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending, the Assessing Officer may withhold the refund for a limited, time bound period, but only after recording reasons in writing and obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The clause streamlines language from Section 245, narrows discretionary grounds for withholding by focusing on pendency of proceedings, and retains procedural safeguards without specifying priority among kinds of dues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on tax refunds: prescribed entitlement and computation rules ensure compensation for delayed refunds and administrative resolution.
    Clause 437 provides a statutory entitlement to interest on delayed tax refunds, specifying commencement dates for interest based on refund source (advance tax, TCS, tax treated as paid, self-assessment, rectification or excess payment), a materiality threshold exempting trivial refunds, extension of entitlement to deductors, exclusion of periods of delay attributable to the taxpayer or deductor, additional interest for appellate or revision order-related refunds, adjustment and recovery mechanisms for varied refund amounts, and administrative resolution of disputes on excluded periods by a senior tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Finality of assessments: refund claims limited to refunds for wrongly paid or excess tax, not re litigation of settled assessments.
    Clause 436 prevents an assessee, in refund claims, from questioning or seeking review of any assessment or matter that has become final and conclusive; relief in such claims is limited to refund of tax wrongly paid or paid in excess and the provision must be read with appeal, rectification and revision mechanisms to avoid undermining corrective powers elsewhere in the statute.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Automatic refunds on appellate or statutory orders require proactive AO disbursement, subject to reassessment and annulment limits.
    Automatic refunds are mandated when appellate or other statutory orders reduce or annul tax liability, requiring the Assessing Officer to refund excess amounts without a claim, except where the Act provides otherwise. Refunds become due only after a fresh assessment when an order directs reassessment, and where an assessment is annulled the refund is limited to the excess tax paid over tax chargeable on the returned total income. The provision preserves AO obligations, exceptions for set off or stay, and separates principal refund rules from interest entitlement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    TDS refund mechanism for deductors clarifies eligibility, prescribed application procedure, and time bound AO orders.
    Clause 434 creates a statutory TDS refund mechanism allowing a deductor who, under a written agreement, bore withholding tax and later claims no deduction was legally required to apply for refund in the prescribed form; the Assessing Officer must inquire as necessary, provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and pass a written order allowing or rejecting the claim within the specified time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Return-based refund claims must be made through the income tax return, tying refund limitation to return filing timelines.
    Clause 433 requires that every refund claim be made by furnishing the return of income under section 263, making return filing the exclusive procedural vehicle for refund claims and implicitly tying limitation to the return filing timelines without providing express condonation or separate application mechanisms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Refund entitlement: clubbed-income payee and authorised representatives may claim tax refunds when taxpayer cannot act.
    The clause entitles the person in whose total income clubbed income is included to claim the refund attributable to that income, and authorises a legal representative, trustee, guardian or receiver to claim or receive refunds on behalf of a taxpayer who cannot do so because of death, incapacity, insolvency, liquidation or similar cause; procedural formalities and limitation issues are left to subordinate rules and practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax refund entitlement preserved: statutory right maintained under new bill with procedural verification by Assessing Officer.
    Clause 431 preserves a statutory right to a refund where a person satisfies the Assessing Officer that tax paid, paid on or treated as paid on their behalf for a tax year exceeds the amount properly chargeable; it covers direct payments and deemed payments (TDS/TCS, advance tax), places an initial procedural burden on the taxpayer, and mirrors Section 237 of the 1961 Act except for the shift from assessment year to tax year, with attendant implications for temporal reference, procedural integration, and ancillary issues such as interest, set offs and standards of verification.

    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