Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
GST ▸
Central GST ▸
Integrated GST + ▸
UTGST / SGST ▸
GST Case Laws + ▸
Income Tax ▸
Income Tax ▸
Allied (Direct Tax) ▸
Income Tax Case Laws ▸
DTAA ▸
International Taxation ▸
Customs ▸
Customs Act / Rules ▸
Notifications / Forms ▸
Circulars / Tariff ▸
Case Laws / Manual ▸
FTP/SEZ ▸
Foreign Trade ▸
Notifications / Circulars / Appendix / Forms ▸
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) ▸
Corp. Law ▸
Company Laws ▸
Standards / Trusts ▸
Partnership / LLP / Societies ▸
Case Laws ▸
FEMA ▸
FEMA / FCRA ▸
Notifications / Circulars ▸
Manual / FAQ ▸
FEMA Case Laws ▸
SEBI / IBC ▸
SEBI ▸
SEBI Case Laws ▸
IBC ▸
IBC - Case Laws ▸
PMLA ▸
Benami Property ▸
Black Money ▸
Money Laundering ▸
Vivad ▸
Direct Tax ▸
Indirect Taxes ▸
Indian Laws ▸
Indian Laws ▸
Bharatiya Nyaya 2023 ▸
Finance Acts & Bills / Amendment Acts ▸
Case Laws ▸
Labour Laws ▸
Labour Code ▸
Old / Others ▸
Central Excise ▸
Central Excise - Cases ▸
Wealth Tax ▸
Service Tax ▸
Service Tax Cases ▸
CST / DVAT ▸
CST / VAT / Sales Tax ▸
×

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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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
All › Income Tax
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

All › Income Tax
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

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

Acts Income Tax
Next ➔