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 LawsGST
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❮
❯
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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 ➔