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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Accommodation Entries: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Judicial Perspective on Section 148A of the Income Tax Act: Amended Reassessment Provisions
    Case LawsCustoms
    Analyzing Legal Principles in a Gold Smuggling Case: The Role of Co-accused Statements and Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Threshold set for monetary limits in filing appeals by Revenue: A policy shift towards reducing liti...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Consequences of Goods Misdeclaration in Customs Law
    Case LawsGST
    Upholding Procedural Justice in GST Administration: Adjudication of GST demand u/s 74
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    High Court's Stance on Penalty Notices in Tax Law: A Balance Between Procedure and Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Penalty Provisions under Section 271(1)(c): Analyzing the Fine Line Between Concealment...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: Between Legal Intent and Factual Circ...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    An Analysis of the Natural Justice Principle in Tender Cancellation: A Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Principles of Natural Justice and Administrative Action: Balancing Municipal Powers and Citizen Righ...
    Case LawsFEMA
    Navigating Disclosure and Fair Trial in FEMA Proceedings: A Supreme Court Analysis
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Issues in Customs Duty Evasion: Penalties
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessing Penalties for non-filing of ITR: A Deep Dive into Section 271F of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Addition after survey option as Unaccounted income: Burden to prove and evidence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decision on Depreciation and Expenditure
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case LawsIBC
    A Judicial Perspective on Locus Standi in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Cases
    Case LawsIBC
    Navigating Shareholder Rights in Corporate Insolvency: An Analysis of NCLAT’s Decision on the issu...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
❮
❯
❯❯
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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Accommodation Entries: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment under Section 148A: disputed factual issues on accommodation entries directed to the assessing officer for factual determination.
    The High Court required detailed scrutiny of alleged accommodation entries and the genuineness of share transactions under the reassessment procedure, noting taxpayers' disclosure of income as Short Term Capital Gains. Applying precedents on judicial review, the court held that disputed factual questions and the procedural validity of reassessment are to be determined by the Assessing Officer rather than in writ proceedings, absent evidence of arbitrariness or limitation breach.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Judicial Perspective on Section 148A of the Income Tax Act: Amended Reassessment Provisions
    Show AI Summary
    Section 148A preliminary enquiry limits inquiry to existence of information before reassessment and preserves assessee procedural rights.
    Preliminary enquiries under the post amendment reassessment procedure require the assessing officer to possess tangible information suggesting escaped income and to afford the assessee an opportunity to respond before issuing a reassessment notice; the officer's inquiry at this stage is limited to ascertaining existence of such information and does not adjudicate the merits, while procedural protections-objection, access to information, and appellate remedies-remain available.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Analyzing Legal Principles in a Gold Smuggling Case: The Role of Co-accused Statements and Procedura...
    Show AI Summary
    Co accused statements: cannot alone ground smuggling conviction; requires corroboration and procedural compliance to protect presumption of innocence.
    A solitary declaration by a co accused is insufficient to establish participation in a smuggling offence without independent corroborative evidence linking the accused to the seized goods or operation; reliance on such statements without examination and opportunity for cross examination undermines their evidentiary value and contravenes fair trial protections and the presumption of innocence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Threshold set for monetary limits in filing appeals by Revenue: A policy shift towards reducing liti...
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary limits for appeals reshape Revenue litigation strategy, reducing low stake appeals and encouraging selective prosecution.
    The court treated CBDT instructions on monetary limits as possessing binding effect within the statutory appeals framework, harmonising the right to appeal with monetary limit provisions and applying policy considerations from the National Litigation Policy to limit low stake Revenue appeals; this approach affects Revenue litigation strategy, judicial resource allocation, taxpayer relief, and invites possible legislative clarification regarding retrospective or prospective application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Consequences of Goods Misdeclaration in Customs Law
    Show AI Summary
    Misdeclaration of goods: deliberate misstatements attract differential duty, redemption fines and potential confiscation under customs law.
    Misdeclaration of goods in declared quantity and weight violates the statutory declaration regime; an accurate declaration is essential to duty assessment, and material, deliberate discrepancies justify imposition of differential duty, redemption fines and potential confiscation to protect revenue and deter evasion.
    Case LawsGST
    Upholding Procedural Justice in GST Administration: Adjudication of GST demand u/s 74
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in GST notices: ensure intimation precedes show cause notice and allow reasonable opportunity to reply.
    The case addresses non-compliance with GST notice procedures where intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and a show cause notice under Section 74(1) were issued simultaneously, depriving the taxpayer of a statutory opportunity to reply. Emphasising procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, the court required that the taxpayer be allowed to file a response within a specified timeframe and that further proceedings, including any fresh notice, follow after consideration of that reply.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    High Court's Stance on Penalty Notices in Tax Law: A Balance Between Procedure and Justice
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty notice specificity: lack of clarity requires proof of actual prejudice before challenging tax penalties.
    Penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 must clearly communicate the specific charge to secure a fair hearing; failure to object during proceedings may constitute acquiescence. Procedural defects do not invalidate penalty proceedings unless the affected party proves actual prejudice, and the burden of demonstrating such prejudice lies with the party alleging breach of natural justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Penalty Provisions under Section 271(1)(c): Analyzing the Fine Line Between Concealment...
    Show AI Summary
    Furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be presumed from mere disallowance; defective notices and bona fide claims constrain penalties.
    Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income requires proof of knowingly misstated or concealed particulars; mere disallowance of a claim does not suffice. A bona fide, arguable claim should not automatically attract penalty, and a defective or unadapted notice that fails to demonstrate application of mind can vitiate penalty proceedings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: Between Legal Intent and Factual Circ...
    Show AI Summary
    Furnishing inaccurate particulars: claiming non existent depreciation can attract penalty even without willful concealment; notice must be specific.
    Claiming depreciation on non existent assets constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the penalty provision; proof of willful concealment is not a necessary ingredient for civil penalty liability. Notices initiating penalty proceedings must be specific and clear to meet natural justice requirements, and factual admissions and reversal of disputed claims are operative in determining whether inaccurate particulars were furnished.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    An Analysis of the Natural Justice Principle in Tender Cancellation: A Case Study
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tender cancellations: ensure opportunity to be heard; flexibility applies where no actual prejudice arises.
    Natural justice in tender cancellation requires affected parties be given an opportunity to meet allegations; the case highlights an e tender interrupted by an ex parte inquiry, cancellation without prior notice, and allegations of bias. These procedural deficiencies implicate the audi alteram partem principle and render such cancellations arbitrary where parties are not afforded a fair chance to respond. The analysis notes natural justice is flexible and, in absence of actual prejudice, its breach may not invalidate administrative action, while stressing transparency and balanced procedural fairness by public bodies.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Principles of Natural Justice and Administrative Action: Balancing Municipal Powers and Citizen Righ...
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice requires municipal demolition actions to provide adequate notice and a fair hearing before affecting property rights.
    The judgment requires municipal enforcement actions affecting immovable property to rest on clear statutory authority and to respect constitutional property rights, insisting that dispossession or demolition follow lawful procedure. It mandates observance of natural justice, specifically adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and embeds these procedural safeguards within principles of transparency, proportionality, and reasoned municipal decision making.
    Case LawsFEMA
    Navigating Disclosure and Fair Trial in FEMA Proceedings: A Supreme Court Analysis
    Show AI Summary
    Disclosure obligations ensure accused access to relevant evidence, preserving fair trial rights in FEMA proceedings.
    Disclosure obligations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act require enforcement authorities to furnish accused persons with all relevant documents and evidence to enable preparation of defence, reflecting the right to a fair hearing and natural justice. Investigative confidentiality may justify limited nondisclosure only when authorities demonstrate specific harm, and any withholding must be narrowly tailored, with reasoned determinations that preserve core procedural fairness in FEMA adjudications.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Issues in Customs Duty Evasion: Penalties
    Show AI Summary
    Customs Penalty Jurisdiction affirmed where under invoicing and dual invoicing indicate participation in duty evasion scheme.
    Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) for alleged under invoicing and dual invoicing was sustained on the basis that receipt of part consideration and issuance of false invoices constituted participation in a scheme to evade customs duty; the offences were treated as occurring within India so the Customs Act applied, co noticee settlements did not extend immunity to others, and a jurisdictional challenge to DRI authority was found inapplicable to the notice issued.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessing Penalties for non-filing of ITR: A Deep Dive into Section 271F of the Income Tax Act
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to file return on time triggers penalty under Section 271F even if return is later filed after reassessment notice.
    The summary addresses penalty liability for failing to file the original income tax return by the statutory due date, noting that later filing in response to a reassessment notice does not excuse the late original filing. It emphasizes that initiation of penalty proceedings after completion of reassessment does not automatically vitiate the penalty, and that absence of a valid reason for delay sustains penal consequences under the provision for non-filing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Addition after survey option as Unaccounted income: Burden to prove and evidence.
    Show AI Summary
    Burden to prove unaccounted income: additions require admissible evidence, not assumptions from survey reports.
    Burden to prove alleged unaccounted income lies with the revenue; additions based on survey findings and an Inspector's report to re fix sale prices must be supported by admissible evidence. The taxpayer used the percentage of completion method for construction income, and impounded documents from a statutory survey were central to the dispute. Additions founded mainly on assumptions or inspector notes, without corroborative proof linking seized material to unexplained receipts, are susceptible to appellate review.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decision on Depreciation and Expenditure
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation on aircraft recognized when operational preparations precede airworthiness certificate, affecting tax depreciation timing.
    The tribunal treated preparatory expenditures to make a newly acquired aircraft operational as integral to business activity for determining the timing of depreciation, remitted the classification and amortisation of engine improvement and overhaul costs to the assessing officer, allowed component replacement and repair costs as revenue deductions because they did not extend useful life, and confirmed that interest on TDS is not an allowable deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
    Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
    Case LawsIBC
    A Judicial Perspective on Locus Standi in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Cases
    Show AI Summary
    Locus standi in insolvency proceedings: standing requires a direct, legitimate interest to initiate or challenge IBC processes.
    The commentary examines locus standi under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, focusing on entitlement to initiate, challenge and participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. It highlights procedural interactions among the financial creditor, resolution professional and Committee of Creditors, and discusses contested applications for extension of plan implementation, protection of bank guarantees and permission for fresh bids where a bidder failed to perform. The piece stresses that standing depends on a direct, legitimate interest and that courts apply a stringent interest based test when admitting challenges or procedural relief in IBC proceedings.
    Case LawsIBC
    Navigating Shareholder Rights in Corporate Insolvency: An Analysis of NCLAT’s Decision on the issu...
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder locus standi constrained in insolvency; CoC commercial wisdom insulated from judicial interference absent material illegality.
    Shareholder rights are substantially curtailed after commencement of CIRP: shareholders may file claims in liquidation but lack standing to overturn CoC commercial decisions. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is entitled to deference and is reviewable by courts only for material irregularity or legal violation; procedural objections and requests for forensic audit must demonstrate such material illegality to unsettle an approved resolution plan under the IBC.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Show AI Summary
    Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
    The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.

    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 ➔