Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
    6. Text Search
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. Text Search
╳
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
    NewsBills
    Amendments in Central Excise Act, 1944.
    NewsBills
    Retrospective Exemptions in Service Tax
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
    Case LawsGST
    Confiscation under CGST Act: Invoking Section 130 CGST Act
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Dishonour of Cheques and the Burden of Proof: Rebutting the Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable In...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condoning Delay in Filing Income Tax Return: A Case for Equitable Consideration
    Case LawsGST
    Pre-deposit: Upholding Principles of Natural Justice in CGST Appeals
    Case LawsGST
    Dismissal of GST Appeal on Procedural Grounds Quashed: Where the appeal was not signed by the Author...
    Case LawsService Tax
    Quashing Show-Cause Notice Due to Unexplained Delay: Upholding Fair Adjudication
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Navigating the Interplay of Exempt Income and Expenditure
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Reasonableness Test for Attaching Non-Proceeds of Crime: Limits on Attaching Pre-existing Property u...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of International Consulting Services: Navigating the Complexities
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Seizure and the Doctrine of "Reasons to Believe": Clarity or Ambiguity
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Examining the Eligibility of Credit Co-operative Societies for Deduction on Interest from Co-operati...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Upholding Arbitral Autonomy: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Interference u/s 11
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Draft Assessment Order Regime: Navigating the Multi-tiered Assessment Process and Distinct Nature of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Section 14A Amendment: Retrospective or Prospective Effect?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax on Royalties: Navigating the Interplay between Domestic Tax Laws and Double Taxation Avoidance A...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Iron Ore Exports and Refund: Assessing 'Fe' Content on WMT Basis for Duty Calculation
    Case LawsGST
    Ensuring Procedural Fairness: The Importance of Proper Service of SCN in Tax Assessments
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    NewsBills
    Amendments in Central Excise Act, 1944.
    Show AI Summary
    Interim Board for Settlement to replace Settlement Commission and assume pending central excise case disposal powers.
    The Finance Bill establishes one or more Interim Boards for Settlement to take over processing of pending applications from the stage they stood before constitution, replaces references to the Settlement Commission with Interim Boards, transfers the Commission's powers and functions to the Interim Boards for specified provisions, bars new applications under the relevant application provision after the appointed date, provides that the existing Settlement Commission will cease to operate from the appointed date, and allows an Interim Board, within three months of constitution, to extend disposal time for pending matters by up to twelve months with written reasons.
    NewsBills
    Retrospective Exemptions in Service Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective exemption for reinsurance services under crop insurance schemes removes prior service tax liability for those services.
    A retrospective exemption is proposed for services provided or agreed to be provided by insurance companies by way of reinsurance services under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) and the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS), treating such reinsurance services as exempt from service tax for the period commencing 1 April 2011 and ending 30 June 2017, thereby adjusting past tax liability and compliance positions for insurers and reinsurers.
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit distribution expanded to cover interstate reverse-charge supplies with revised ITC reporting and return rules.
    Amendments permit Input Service Distributors to distribute input tax credit for interstate reverse-charge supplies, adjust ITC statement and return provisions by removing "auto generated" phrasing and enabling additional prescribed details and filing conditions, and require reversal of corresponding ITC where a credit-note reduces a supplier's liability; they add definitions for local/municipal funds and Unique Identification Marking to enable a Track and Trace Mechanism, insert an enabling Track and Trace provision with penalties, amend Schedule III treatment for certain SEZ/FTWZ supplies with no refunds, and impose mandatory pre-deposit of penalty amounts in specified appeals.
    Case LawsGST
    Confiscation under CGST Act: Invoking Section 130 CGST Act
    Show AI Summary
    Section 130 CGST: direct invocation permitted only with recorded reasons and material proving intent to evade tax.
    Section 129 pertains to goods in transit, while Section 130 has broader scope allowing direct invocation where material shows a clear intent to evade tax; such direct action requires specific, recorded reasons based on material, an adequate show-cause notice that sets out those reasons, and compliance with prescribed formalities so that authorities do not base confiscation on conclusions absent from the notice.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Dishonour of Cheques and the Burden of Proof: Rebutting the Presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable In...
    Show AI Summary
    Rebuttable presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act: burden can be discharged on preponderance of probabilities by accused.
    The court holds that the statutory presumption in favour of the cheque holder is rebuttable and may be displaced by the drawer upon adducing evidence which, on the preponderance of probabilities, shows the cheque was not issued for a legally recoverable debt; inconsistencies in the holder's case, absence of supporting financial records, and unexplained issuance circumstances are salient in assessing rebuttal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condoning Delay in Filing Income Tax Return: A Case for Equitable Consideration
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: equitable consideration where bona fide technical failures and professional disruptions impede tax filing.
    Condonation of short delays in filing income tax returns must be governed by principles of equity and fairness, with bona fide explanations such as portal technical failures and unforeseeable disruptions at a chartered accountant's premises meriting empathetic, case sensitive assessment rather than mechanical rejection. Where assessees rely on professional intermediaries, corroborative evidence of genuine operational impediments is a relevant consideration in exercising discretionary condonation to facilitate compliance objectives.
    Case LawsGST
    Pre-deposit: Upholding Principles of Natural Justice in CGST Appeals
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement: GSTN portal payment records can establish compliance, requiring authorities to permit clarification and supporting proof.
    System-generated GSTN records - including the appeal memorandum, electronic ledger payment screenshots and provisional acknowledgment - can suffice to demonstrate compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, and GSTN portal registration may establish an authorized signatory; where doubts exist the Appellate Authority must afford an opportunity to clarify and permit production of supporting board resolutions or powers of attorney.
    Case LawsGST
    Dismissal of GST Appeal on Procedural Grounds Quashed: Where the appeal was not signed by the Author...
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breached where appeal was dismissed for signatory authority without opportunity to respond; hearing and reasoned reconsideration required.
    Dismissal of a tax appeal solely for lack of authority of the signatory, without calling on the appellant to clarify or providing verification, breaches the principle of natural justice. Doubts about signatory authority require an opportunity to explain; decision-making must produce a reasoned order addressing submissions, provide advance notice of personal hearing, and disclose any external orders or judgments relied upon to enable the appellant to respond.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Quashing Show-Cause Notice Due to Unexplained Delay: Upholding Fair Adjudication
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication: unexplained delays undermine natural justice and invalidate further administrative steps.
    The challenge contested whether inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication violated the principles of natural justice, causing serious prejudice by impairing the petitioner's ability to defend. The court found the respondents' explanations-frequent changes in adjudicating officers and accommodation of co-noticees-insufficient, applied precedent that excessive unexplained delay vitiates proceedings, and emphasized the duty of authorities to conduct timely adjudication or supply adequate justification for delay.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Navigating the Interplay of Exempt Income and Expenditure
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income: apportionment required and actual exempt income is a prerequisite.
    Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income requires identification and apportionment of expenses attributable to non taxable receipts; only expenditure expended to earn taxable income may be claimed. Courts interpret "in relation to" expansively and reject reliance on the spender's dominant purpose. The existence of actual exempt income is necessary to invoke the disallowance rule, and post enactment explanatory amendments that alter prior law are not retrospective.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Reasonableness Test for Attaching Non-Proceeds of Crime: Limits on Attaching Pre-existing Property u...
    Show AI Summary
    Proceeds of crime: pre-existing property cannot be provisionally attached absent equivalent-value connection under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
    Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a reasonable nexus between the attached property and the alleged criminal activity; only property derived from criminal activity, the value of such property, or equivalent-value property held domestically qualifies. Pre-existing immovable assets purchased before the scheduled offence cannot be attached absent qualification as equivalent-value property, whereas challenges to movable asset attachments are to be pursued through available remedies.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of International Consulting Services: Navigating the Complexities
    Show AI Summary
    Make available requirement for technical services prevents taxation where consultancy did not transfer technical knowledge, preserving source-based taxation.
    The fees did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services because the make available condition-requiring transfer, transmission or enablement of technical knowledge-was not met; the domestic exception for services utilized to earn income from a source outside India applied since the services related to tournaments held abroad, and income attributable to any Service Permanent Establishment is taxable under the DTAA business profits regime.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Seizure and the Doctrine of "Reasons to Believe": Clarity or Ambiguity
    Show AI Summary
    Reasons to believe requirement in customs seizures: judicial review limits fact-finding and adjudication must address documentation and recordal of reasons.
    Interpretation of the reasons to believe requirement under section 110 of the Customs Act centers on whether citation of statutory provisions in a seizure panchnama suffices versus the need for factual particulars. The court noted conflicting precedents, factual disputes about production of transport documents and e way bill timing, and emphasized that disputed factual issues fall to adjudicatory proceedings rather than writ review, urging expeditious adjudication and cooperation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Examining the Eligibility of Credit Co-operative Societies for Deduction on Interest from Co-operati...
    Show AI Summary
    Deductibility under Section 80P(2)(d): interest from co operative bank deposits may qualify if linked to primary co operative activity.
    Interest earned by credit co-operative societies from deposits with co-operative banks is examined for eligibility under Section 80P(2)(d), focusing on whether such receipts bear the requisite nexus to the societies' primary credit-providing activities and on the statutory meaning of co-operative bank as interpreted in judicial precedents that have largely favoured allowance of the deduction.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Upholding Arbitral Autonomy: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Interference u/s 11
    Show AI Summary
    Arbitral autonomy: referral courts must limit Section 11 scrutiny to prima facie existence of arbitration agreements.
    The referral court's inquiry under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement; issues such as alleged accord and satisfaction and mixed questions of law and fact do not negate the arbitration clause and are within the arbitral tribunal's exclusive competence. Legislative intent behind the 2015 amendments supports minimal judicial interference at the appointment stage, and limitation under Section 11(6) should be confined to timeliness, leaving substantive limitation defenses to the tribunal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Draft Assessment Order Regime: Navigating the Multi-tiered Assessment Process and Distinct Nature of...
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C preserves DRP review and invalidates final assessments issued without it.
    Section 144C establishes a self-contained, multi-tiered assessment regime for international-transaction assessees in which the Dispute Resolution Panel exercises independent, enhanced review distinct from Section 144B. Framing the draft assessment order is an integral statutory step that preserves the assessee's right to challenge proposed findings; omission of that draft-stage procedure is therefore a substantive breach of the Section 144C code rather than a mere procedural irregularity. Remand under Section 153(6) does not revive assessments once the limitation periods in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 153 have expired.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Section 14A Amendment: Retrospective or Prospective Effect?
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of tax amendment preserves taxpayer expectations and limits disallowance of expenses to stated effective years.
    The issue is whether the Explanation to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 applies retrospectively or prospectively, particularly for assessment years where no exempt income arose. The Court analysed the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, relevant precedents, and the principle that tax laws altering existing legal positions are not to be given retrospective effect unless expressly or necessarily implied. It concluded the Explanation must operate prospectively from the effective date stated in the Memorandum, maintaining taxpayer expectations and legal certainty.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax on Royalties: Navigating the Interplay between Domestic Tax Laws and Double Taxation Avoidance A...
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of Royalties: domestic law amendments cannot override DTAA interpretation; telecommunication payments not royalties.
    The court held that unilateral domestic amendments to the statutory definition of royalty cannot alter the meaning of that term in a DTAA; treaty terms are to be interpreted by their plain meaning, guided by international law principles, OECD commentary, and precedents, and payments for telecommunication services or satellite transponder capacity do not qualify as royalties under the relevant DTAA.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Iron Ore Exports and Refund: Assessing 'Fe' Content on WMT Basis for Duty Calculation
    Show AI Summary
    Fe content on WMT basis determines export duty, lowering the applicable rate and enabling recovery of excess duty paid.
    Assessment of iron ore export duty requires computation of Fe on a Wet Metric Ton basis by deducting moisture using the formula Iron content (as received) = Fe x (100 - M) / 100. Applying this WMT calculation against the customs notification framework that prescribes duty rates tied to measured Fe percentage results in a lower duty classification and a corresponding right to recover any excess duty paid when the measured Fe falls below the specified threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Ensuring Procedural Fairness: The Importance of Proper Service of SCN in Tax Assessments
    Show AI Summary
    Service of show cause notice: ensure proper notice and opportunity before tax orders; fresh notice and reasoned hearing required.
    Proper service and transparent consideration of assessee replies are procedural prerequisites before passing tax assessment orders. Where portal non-reflection of notices and uncertainty about consideration of replies arises, the assessee is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court required that the impugned order be treated as a notice for filing a written reply within a short period, directed issuance of a fresh notice in the prescribed manner with a clear minimum notice period, mandated the assessee's appearance, and obliged the assessing officer to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a defined timeframe after valid service.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Comparison of section 487 "Abetment of false return, etc." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      17 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Print Options

      Section 487 Offences by companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The documents are two textual variants of Clause/Section 487 dealing with "Offences by companies" under the Income-tax legislation of 2025: (1) Clause 487 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version); and (2) Section 487 - Income-tax Act, 2025 (enacted text). Both set out vicarious and personal liability for corporate tax offences. The enacted text contains modest but important drafting differences from the Bill: notably, an expanded non-reliance clause in sub-section (3) and slightly different framing in sub-section (2). Affected parties include companies and persons in managerial or controlling positions (directors, managers, secretaries, other officers, partners, controlling members). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: the title indicates this provision falls under "Offences and Prosecution" of the Income-tax statute of 2025. Both texts define the circumstances in which a company and specified persons are deemed guilty of an offence under the Act and prescribe liability when offences are committed by companies. Definitions provided in sub-section (5) (Bill) / (5) (Act) define "company" (a body corporate and includes a firm; an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not) and "director" (in relation to a firm, a partner; in relation to any association/body, any member controlling the affairs). No other definitions or legislative history are provided in the documents.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both texts operate on two complementary principles: (a) vicarious or deemed guilt of persons in charge of a company's business at the time an offence was committed (sub-section (1)); and (b) personal culpability where an offence is proved to have been committed with the consent, connivance, or attributable to neglect of specified office-holders (sub-section (3)). Sub-section (4) addresses the sentencing frame where the offence by the company is punishable with imprisonment and fine - prescribing fine for the company and liability to be proceeded against and punished for the concerned persons "as per the provisions of this Act." Sub-section (5) supplies internal definitions for "company" and "director" (as described above).

      Interpretation

      The texts adopt a classical statutory approach to corporate criminality and derivative liability: imposing deemed guilt on the company and those "in charge of, and responsible to" it for business conduct (sub-section (1)); allowing exculpation if the person proves lack of knowledge or that all due diligence was exercised (sub-section (2)); and imposing direct liability on directors/officers where consent/connivance/neglect is established (sub-section (3)). The enacted text's phrasing in sub-section (3) - prefacing the paragraph with "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2)" - signals a legislative intention to make sub-section (3) operate notwithstanding the defences or deeming in (1) and (2). The Bill's version limits the non-reliance to sub-section (1) only. That drafting distinction affects how sub-section (2)'s due diligence defence interacts with personal liability under sub-section (3).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (2) provides a statutory defence for persons deemed guilty under sub-section (1): the person must prove either (a) the offence was committed without his knowledge, or (b) he had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of such offence. The texts otherwise contain no further provisos, thresholds, or procedural conditions. No ancillary definitions of "due diligence," burden of proof specifics, or evidentiary standards are provided. Not stated in the document: standard of proof (criminal or civil), whether the due diligence defence shifts burden of proof, or procedural mechanisms for prosecution.

      Illustrations

      • Illustration 1: Not stated in the document - the text does not supply an example of application where a company commits an offence and an officer invokes the due diligence defence.
      • Illustration 2: Not stated in the document - no example demonstrating the operation of sub-section (3) when consent/connivance/neglect is proved.

      Interplay

      Both texts cross-reference only internal subsections. No external Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are cited in the provided texts. Not stated in the document: interaction with general principles of criminal liability, procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or any tax procedure rules. The enacted text's broader "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2)" clause suggests a stronger statutory priority for sub-section (3) over the defences in (2), potentially limiting the circumstances in which an officer can invoke the due diligence defence where consent/connivance/neglect are alleged.

      Differences Between the Provisions and Practical Impact

      • Scope of non-reliance in sub-section (3): The Bill (old version) states sub-section (3) applies "irrespective of the provisions of sub-section (1)" (i.e., it carves out directors/etc. from the deeming rule in (1)). The enacted Act expands that to "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2)".
        • Practical impact: Under the Act text, sub-section (3) operates notwithstanding both the deeming in (1) and the due diligence defence in (2). This means that where consent/connivance/neglect is proved, the officer cannot rely on the due diligence defence in (2) to avoid being "deemed to be guilty", thereby narrowing the scope of the due diligence escape for officers in those circumstances.
      • Wording of sub-section (2): The Bill uses "the person referred in the said sub-section proves" while the Act uses "the person referred therein proves". This is a drafting stylistic change with no substantive effect.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; purely editorial.
      • Introductory phrasing to sub-section (3): The Act uses "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), where an offence ... such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty" - while the Bill phrases it conditionally ("If it is proved ... then irrespective of the provisions of sub-section (1), such director... shall also be deemed to be guilty"). The Act places the "irrespective" prefix before the conditional clause, making explicit that the operation of sub-section (3) displaces both sub-section (1) and (2).
        • Practical impact: The ordering in the Act strengthens the independence of sub-section (3) as a separate route to personal liability, limiting defendants' ability to rely on (2) once the facts in (3) are established.
      • Sub-section (4) phrasing: Both texts require that where the offence by the company is punishable with imprisonment and fine, the company is fined and the relevant persons shall be "liable to be proceeded against and punished as per the provisions of this Act." Wording differences are minor and do not change the substance.
        • Practical impact: None significant.
      • Terminology in sub-section (5): The Bill states "In this section" while the Act states "For the purposes of this section". Substantively the same.
        • Practical impact: None substantive.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk: Under the enacted text, officers and persons in charge face increased exposure where an offence is proved to have been committed with their consent, connivance or attributable to neglect - they will be deemed guilty irrespective of a previously available due diligence defence. Companies and those in charge should be aware that proving "due diligence" may not be an operative shield where allegations of consent/connivance/neglect are made. The Bill's earlier formulation potentially left more room for invoking sub-section (2) against allegations in (3); that protection is narrowed in the Act.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Not stated in the document are specific documentary or procedural requirements. However, the text implies that persons in charge who wish to rely on the due diligence defence under sub-section (2) should maintain contemporaneous records demonstrating the exercise of all due diligence and steps taken to prevent offences. Not stated in the document: precise contents or format of such records, retention periods, or evidentiary thresholds.
      • Prosecutorial approach: Not stated in the document whether prosecuting authorities must separately prove both the company's offence and the individual's consent/connivance/neglect, nor how evidentiary burdens are allocated. The enacted drafting suggests prosecutors can pursue personal liability under sub-section (3) even if the person attempts to rely on sub-section (2).
      • Sentencing consequences: Where the company's offence attracts imprisonment and fine, the company is to be punished with fine and implicated persons are "liable to be proceeded against and punished as per the provisions of this Act." Not stated in the document are minimum/maximum fines for the company or sentencing ranges for individuals; no procedural guidance on joint or separate trials is provided.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts create deeming liability for a company and persons "in charge of, and responsible to" it for corporate tax offences.
      • Both provide a due diligence defence for persons deemed guilty under sub-section (1), but the enacted Act limits the availability of that defence where consent/connivance/neglect is proved under sub-section (3).
      • The Act's sub-section (3) expressly operates "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2)", which narrows officers' defences relative to the Bill version.
      • Definitions for "company" and "director" broaden corporate constructs to include firms and associations and specify partner/controlling member roles.
      • Several procedural and evidentiary details (standard of proof, burden allocation, examples, record-keeping requirements) are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical consequence: officers should ensure robust preventive compliance systems and contemporaneous documentation to the extent available, recognising that such evidence may not avert liability where consent/connivance/neglect is proved.

      Full Text:

      Section 487 Offences by companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔