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
╳
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
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENT TO SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2001
    NewsBill
    EXEMPTION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON VALUE OF BIOGAS/COMPRESSED BIOGAS (CBG) CONTAINED IN BLENDED C...
    NewsBill
    DEFERMENT OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHER EXCISE DUTY ON SALE OF UNBLENDED DIESEL
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE CGST ACT, 2017
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE IGST ACT, 2017
    Case LawsGST
    Intermediary Services Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and Export of Services Under Section 2(6):...
    Case LawsGST
    Distinction Between Setting Aside an Illegal Bail Order and Cancellation of Bail: Revisional Scrutin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153C (Finance Act, 2015) and Third-Party Search Assessments: Interplay of Belongs To and Per...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Effect of Section 92CA(1) Reference on Assessment Limitation: Application of Section 153(4) in Trans...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Digital Material Recovered in Search under Section 132 and Its Nexus with the Non-Searched Person: C...
    Case LawsGST
    Refund Disputes Linked to Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B): Consequences of Omission of Rules Without Exp...
    Case LawsGST
    Service Mechanisms (for Notices and SCN) in GST: Deemed Service, Portal Availability, and Statutory ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Due Compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Admissibility of Electronic Records...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Sequential Application of the General Rules for Interpretation in Customs Tariff Classification unde...
    Case LawsGST
    Section 74 CGST Proceedings and the Impermissibility of Clubbing Multiple Financial Years in a Singl...
    Case LawsGST
    Composite Show Cause Notices Under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Requirement of Tax-Perio...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Reverse Burden, Ownership Attribution, and Proof in Gold Seizure Cases: Reaffirming Procedural Safeg...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 68, Loan Credits, and the Limits of Suspicion: Evidentiary Discipline in Search-Linked Asses...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    JAO vs. FAO: Reassessment in the Faceless Era: The Continuing Validity of JAO Jurisdiction Pending S...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour, Tax Compliance, and Judicial Reform: Legally Enforceable Debt and Procedural Innov...
❮
❯
❯❯
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
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENT TO SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2001
    Show AI Summary
    Chewing and related tobacco NCCD schedule rates raised to 60% from May 1, 2026, while effective rate stays 25%.
    Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 2001 is amended to raise NCCD rates from 25% to 60% for HS 2403 99 10 (chewing tobacco), HS 2403 99 30 (jarda scented tobacco) and HS 2403 99 90 (other tobacco products including gutkha) effective 01.05.2026, while a notification will maintain the applied effective rate at 25%.
    NewsBill
    EXEMPTION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON VALUE OF BIOGAS/COMPRESSED BIOGAS (CBG) CONTAINED IN BLENDED C...
    Show AI Summary
    Biogas/CBG in blended CNG: value and related taxes excluded from transaction value for central excise from 02.02.2026.
    The value of Biogas/Compressed Biogas (CBG) contained in blended CNG, and the central, state, union territory or integrated taxes paid on that Biogas/CBG, are excluded from the transaction value for computing central excise duty on blended CNG; the exclusion is effected by amending the existing notification framework and takes effect from 02.02.2026, with the prior GST-only relief rescinded.
    NewsBill
    DEFERMENT OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHER EXCISE DUTY ON SALE OF UNBLENDED DIESEL
    Show AI Summary
    Unblended diesel additional excise duty implementation deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment to existing notification effective immediately.
    The additional excise duty of Rs.2 per litre on unblended diesel is deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Excise through Notification No. 02/2026 Central Excise (01.02.2026), thereby postponing the levy of the higher duty on unblended diesel.
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE CGST ACT, 2017
    Show AI Summary
    Goods and Services Tax: amendments remove discount-agreement link, expand refund scope, and allow interim appellate authorities.
    Amendments remove the requirement that a post-sale discount be linked to an agreement and prescribe issuance of a credit note under section 34 when input tax credit is reversed; section 34 is amended to reference section 15. Section 54 is amended to extend provisional refunds to inverted duty structure claims and to remove the sanction threshold for refunds on exported goods with tax paid. Section 101A gains sub-section (1A) allowing the Central Government to notify an existing authority or tribunal to hear appeals under section 101B pending the National Appellate Authority, with sub-sections (2)-(13) not applying where such empowerment occurs, effective 01.04.2026.
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE IGST ACT, 2017
    Show AI Summary
    Place of supply for intermediary services will follow the IGST Act default provision after omission of the specific clause.
    The amendment omits clause (b) of sub section (8) of section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 so that the place of supply for intermediary services will be determined by the default provision in section 13(2) of the IGST Act, aligning intermediary services with the Act's general place of supply framework.
    Case LawsGST
    Intermediary Services Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and Export of Services Under Section 2(6):...
    Show AI Summary
    Education consultancy commissions treated as exportable services, not intermediary services, where foreign institution is the contracting recipient.
    The Court held that the intermediary test focuses on whether a person merely "arranges or facilitates" a supply, excluding those who supply on their own account; where agreements and consideration establish a principal-to-principal supply to foreign educational institutions, the services qualify as export of services and not intermediary services, making place of supply the recipient's location and supporting refund entitlement.
    Case LawsGST
    Distinction Between Setting Aside an Illegal Bail Order and Cancellation of Bail: Revisional Scrutin...
    Show AI Summary
    GST arrests: Court set aside bail premised on format defects where substantive compliance and no demonstrable prejudice existed.
    The High Court held that a challenge to the legal sustainability of a bail order is distinct from cancellation for supervening conduct and, on the facts, found substantive compliance with CGST arrest safeguards (including authorisation recording reasons to believe and supply of arrest memo and grounds) and BNSS Sections 47-48 when assessed through a prejudice oriented test; absence of statutory headings or non enclosure of detailed grounds with the relative did not, without demonstrable prejudice, justify the magistrate's bail order, which was set aside and the bail bonds cancelled with liberty to apply afresh.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153C (Finance Act, 2015) and Third-Party Search Assessments: Interplay of Belongs To and Per...
    Show AI Summary
    Section 153C: amended trigger applies if seized material is received post amendment, widening third party assessment scope.
    The substituted text widens the jurisdictional trigger for third party assessments from strict ownership to where books or documents "pertain to" or contain information that "relates to" the other person; the first proviso's deeming fiction makes the date of receipt of seized material by the other person's Assessing Officer the operative reference point, so if receipt, satisfaction and issuance of notice occur after the amendment, the amended provision governs, subject to the requirement of recorded satisfaction that the material bears on determination of total income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Effect of Section 92CA(1) Reference on Assessment Limitation: Application of Section 153(4) in Trans...
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing assessments: outer statutory limitation governs final orders; DRP deadlines do not enlarge the overall limitation.
    The tribunal permitted admission of additional legal grounds based on facts on record and held that the outer statutory limitation governs final assessments in eligible-assessee transfer pricing cases. The dispute-resolution procedural deadline requires prompt action after directions but does not enlarge the overall limitation; statutory extension available for transfer pricing references is to be applied to the outer limit, and external judicial limitation extensions do not extend the time for completing original assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Digital Material Recovered in Search under Section 132 and Its Nexus with the Non-Searched Person: C...
    Show AI Summary
    Digital material recovered in a third party search cannot alone justify invoking Section 153C without a direct nexus to the non searched person.
    Section 153C jurisdiction requires seized or requisitioned books of account or documents from a search that relate to or pertain to a non searched person; digital images recovered in a third party search that did not name or connect the petitioners could not sustain Section 153C. The Assessing Officer's reliance on post search forms, voluntary supply of documents, public domain inquiries, and an inferential consideration mismatch rendered the recorded satisfaction de hors the statutory trigger, allowing writ relief for jurisdictional defect.
    Case LawsGST
    Refund Disputes Linked to Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B): Consequences of Omission of Rules Without Exp...
    Show AI Summary
    GST refund and recovery proceedings founded solely on omitted rules lapse absent express saving clause.
    Omission of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) without an express saving clause causes pending proceedings and non-final orders founded solely on those rules to lapse, except for transactions past and closed. The General Clauses Act's preservation principle does not apply to omissions effected by subordinate rules/notification, and transitional or laying provisions of the parent statute do not operate as omnibus saving clauses. Consequently, undisposed show cause notices and orders dependent only on the omitted rules were quashed and affected refund applications were remitted for reconsideration after hearing within a stipulated period.
    Case LawsGST
    Service Mechanisms (for Notices and SCN) in GST: Deemed Service, Portal Availability, and Statutory ...
    Show AI Summary
    GST electronic service by portal or email may not trigger appeal limitation absent verifiable communication or retrieval evidence.
    Whether portal upload or e-mail intimation automatically triggers the limitation period under Section 107 depends on whether such electronic modes fall within the statutory deeming fictions of Section 169(2) or Section 169(3). Although Section 169(1)(c)-(d) and Rule 142 permit electronic service, the express deeming consequences are confined to specified modes; absent acknowledgement or verifiable retrieval logs, IT Act presumptions of dispatch/receipt do not alone establish communication for appeal limitation.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Due Compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Admissibility of Electronic Records...
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic evidence admissibility in customs proceedings: contemporaneous extraction records and Section 108 statements can satisfy the certificate requirement.
    The Court held that contemporaneous extraction/printing records, device particulars, and un-retracted Section 108 statements acknowledging computer printouts can constitute substantive due compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; a certificate not in prescribed format will not automatically invalidate admissibility where authenticity is not disputed, while other statutory evidentiary issues (including Section 138B) remain open for adjudication.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Sequential Application of the General Rules for Interpretation in Customs Tariff Classification unde...
    Show AI Summary
    Aluminium shelving classed by import condition: use allowed only if statutorily permitted; supports aren't parts at import.
    Classification requires sequentially applying GRI 1 with relevant Section and Chapter Notes; aligned HSN Explanatory Notes guide interpretation. Use is relevant only where permitted and must reflect intended use objectively evident at importation per the as imported principle. A "part" must have an essential functional nexus to machine operation; mere supporting platforms or shelves that do not contribute mechanically to operation are not parts and may instead fall under material-based structure headings.
    Case LawsGST
    Section 74 CGST Proceedings and the Impermissibility of Clubbing Multiple Financial Years in a Singl...
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years misalign tax-period limitation and may be quashed.
    Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice covering distinct financial years was held impermissible because GST liability is tethered to tax-period returns and limitation timelines; consolidation misaligns period-specific adjudication clocks, constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and warrants quashing with liberty to re-issue notices in strict conformity with the period-wise statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Composite Show Cause Notices Under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Requirement of Tax-Perio...
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices aggregating multiple financial years lack scope; demands must be period-specific and limitation-linked.
    The GST demand-and-recovery framework is period-based: tax liability and limitation are tied to returns for each tax period or financial year, and limitation is computed from the annual return due date or an erroneous return for that year. Consolidating multiple financial years into one consolidated show cause notice is outside the statutory design and constitutes a jurisdictional defect; administrative advisories cannot override the period-specific statutory scheme. Authorities may, if no other impediment exists, initiate proceedings framed strictly period-wise under the applicable demand provisions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Reverse Burden, Ownership Attribution, and Proof in Gold Seizure Cases: Reaffirming Procedural Safeg...
    Show AI Summary
    Gold/jewellery cases require mandatory section 138B admissibility for investigation statements before proving ownership or smuggling links.
    Section 138B creates a mandatory admissibility regime for section 108 investigation statements: unless clause (a) applies, the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority and an admissibility opinion recorded before using those statements to prove truth. Ownership cannot be fixed on an appellant where such statements are excluded, and confiscation/penalty theories for jewellery must follow the correct statutory route-section 111 for imported goods and section 120 when alleging goods are made from smuggled inputs. Documentary explanations require verification before rejection.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 68, Loan Credits, and the Limits of Suspicion: Evidentiary Discipline in Search-Linked Asses...
    Show AI Summary
    Unsecured loans through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits absent transaction specific incriminating material.
    Unsecured bank routed loans cannot be treated as unexplained credits where the assessee produced confirmations, lender bank statements, audited accounts and tax filings, and the Assessing Officer relied chiefly on uncorroborated third party search statements or administrative press releases without transaction specific incriminating material. For years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, a generalized source of source obligation for loan credits is not mandated; repayments in the lender's account are distinct from fresh upstream borrowings. Appellate authorities may independently verify facts under their powers if the AO is given opportunity to respond.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    JAO vs. FAO: Reassessment in the Faceless Era: The Continuing Validity of JAO Jurisdiction Pending S...
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment jurisdiction: both JAO and FAO held to have concurrent authority, pending apex resolution of the faceless regime.
    The Delhi High Court holds that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, construing Section 151A as administrative/enabling rather than jurisdiction-extinguishing. It reasons that routine SLP dismissals do not automatically create binding Article 141 precedent to overturn a coordinate-bench High Court view, and declines to treat the Delhi precedent as per incuriam absent a contrary Supreme Court ratio; interim apex stays are case-specific and do not displace the Delhi position.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour, Tax Compliance, and Judicial Reform: Legally Enforceable Debt and Procedural Innov...
    Show AI Summary
    Cheque dishonour cases: statutory presumptions preserved; tax breaches don't negate enforceability; procedural reforms directed.
    Once a cheque's execution is admitted, statutory presumptions of consideration and of a legally enforceable debt arise and, though rebuttable, the initial burden lies on the accused; unsupported claims of payer incapacity or a 'blank cheque' are insufficient without positive evidence. Breach of tax-related cash-transaction rules attracts fiscal penalties but does not render the underlying loan unenforceable for cheque-dishonour purposes. Revisional courts may not overturn concurrent factual findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error. Procedural reforms and calibrated compounding measures are directed to expedite and streamline Section 138 proceedings.

    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 ➔