Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 506 "Furnishing of information or documents by an Indian concern in certain cases." 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

      Section 506 Furnishing of information or documents by an Indian concern in certain cases

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document considered is Clause 506 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version, titled "Furnishing of information or documents by an Indian concern in certain cases." It requires an Indian concern to furnish prescribed information or documents to a prescribed income-tax authority where shares or interests in a foreign company/entity derive substantial value from assets located in India and are held through the Indian concern. The provision affects Indian concerns, foreign entities with India-located assets, and the income-tax department. Effective date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 506 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version and the cross-reference to section 9(9)(a) (as stated in the clause). The clause addresses information obligations of an "Indian concern" where a non-resident company or entity's share or interest derives substantial value from India-located assets and where such assets are held, directly or indirectly, through an Indian concern. Definitions: the clause uses the terms "Indian concern," "company or entity registered or incorporated outside India," "value substantially from the assets located in India," and refers to a threshold in section 9(9)(a). The clause provides no explicit definitions for "Indian concern," "prescribed," "prescribed income-tax authority," "prescribed period," or the particular documents or information; such particulars are to be provided by prescription. If a detail is missing, Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 506 imposes an information-furnishing obligation on an Indian concern where two conditions coexist:

      • Condition (a): any share or interest in a foreign company or entity "derives, directly or indirectly, its value substantially from the assets located in India," as referenced to section 9(9)(a) (cross-reference in the clause).
      • Condition (b): such foreign company/entity "holds, directly or indirectly, such assets in India through, or in, an Indian concern."

      Where both conditions are satisfied, the Indian concern "shall, for the determination of any income accruing or arising in India under the said clause, furnish within such period, the information or documents in such manner, as prescribed, to the prescribed income-tax authority." The clause therefore applies when a nexus exists between value of foreign interests and India assets, coupled with a holding structure involving an Indian concern.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: the clause is designed to enable the tax authority to determine income accruing or arising in India by compelling domestic intermediaries (Indian concerns) to provide relevant data about foreign entities whose economic value derives substantially from India. The cross-reference to section 9(9)(a) indicates the clause is linked to the provision that identifies when value derives substantially from India-located assets (the text does not reproduce section 9(9)(a) itself). The obligation is procedural and targeted at information collection to facilitate substantive assessment under the income-tax framework. Not stated in the document whether penalties or consequences for non-compliance are provided elsewhere.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any exceptions, carve-outs, thresholds, exemptions, protective provisions, or provisos governing when an Indian concern is not obliged to furnish information. Not stated whether professional privilege, confidentiality, or international information-sharing constraints apply. The clause contains no explicit provisos.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An Indian concern holds assets in India, and a foreign entity's shares substantially derive value from those India assets; the Indian concern must furnish prescribed information to the prescribed authority within the prescribed period. (All specifics of the information, the time limit, and the authority are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A foreign company indirectly holds India-located immovable property via an Indian concern; if the company's shares derive substantial value from that property (as per section 9(9)(a)), the Indian concern is required to supply documents to enable determination of income accruing in India. (Details on scope of documents: Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: the clause expressly cross-refers to section 9(9)(a) (as drafted in the Bill). The clause is procedural and intended to operate in aid of the substantive provisions governing income arising in India. Not stated in the document: any linkage to rules, notifications, or penalties; Not stated whether information provided would be used for assessment, reassessment, transfer pricing, GAAR, or treaty relief procedures. The clause contemplates subordinate legislation ("as prescribed") for period, manner and authority, so the implementing rules and notifications will be critical to operationalise the obligation.

      Comparison of Provisions - Differences and Practical Impact

      Two textual sources were provided: Section 506 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and Clause 506 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). The principal differences and practical impacts are:

      • Cross-reference: Document 2 cites section 9(9)(a) whereas Document 1 cites section 9(10)(a).
        • Practical impact: The change in cross-reference suggests a substantive amendment or renumbering of the provision that identifies the relevant rule on attribution of value to India-located assets. The exact legal consequence depends on the content of the referenced subsection; therefore, whether the scope of cases covered expands, narrows or remains the same cannot be determined from the clause alone. Not stated in the document which is correct or whether this is merely a renumbering.
      • Prescription language and sequencing: Document 2 reads "furnish within such period, the information or documents in such manner, as prescribed, to the prescribed income-tax authority." Document 1 reads "furnish within prescribed period to the prescribed income-tax authority the information or documents in such manner, as may be prescribed."
        • Practical impact: Both texts leave the details to subordinate rules, but Document 1's phrasing ("as may be prescribed") is marginally more conventional administrative phrasing. The difference is stylistic unless regulations specify differing time frames or procedural modalities. Not stated in the document whether any substantive procedural differences are intended.
      • Minor punctuation and wording changes: Document 2 inserts additional commas and different order ("for the determination of any income accruing or arising in India under the said clause") versus Document 1's "for the purposes of determination of any income accruing or arising in India under the said section."
        • Practical impact: No evident change in substantive obligation; both require furnishing for determining income accruing or arising in India. The change from "section" to "clause" signals a drafting shift between bill-stage language and enacted statute drafting conventions. Not stated in the document whether this affects interpretation.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Indian concerns that act as holding vehicles, subsidiaries, agents, trustees or conduits for foreign entities should anticipate a statutory duty to produce specified records when the foreign entity's shares derive substantial value from India-located assets. Failure to comply may expose the Indian concern to enforcement measures (Not stated in the document whether penalties are provided).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: because the clause leaves the scope and manner to prescription, Indian concerns should preserve corporate documents, shareholding records, agreements, asset registers, trust/deed documentation and any valuations or contractual arrangements reflecting the relation between foreign interests and India assets. The clause itself does not enumerate required documents; thus, stakeholders should monitor the subordinate rules when issued. (If a detail is missing: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 506 imposes an information-furnishing obligation on Indian concerns where foreign shares/interests derive substantial value from India-located assets and are held through the Indian concern.
      • The clause is procedural in nature; specific details (prescribed period, manner, authority, and precise documents) are deferred to subordinate prescription. Not stated in the document.
      • There is a cross-reference to section 9(9)(a) in the Bill version, implying reliance on that provision to delineate when value is deemed to derive from India. The enacted text elsewhere may use a different numbering (e.g., section 9(10)(a) in another source), and the practical scope depends on that substantive cross-reference. Not stated which is definitive.
      • No exceptions, penalties, or procedural safeguards are set out in the clause itself. Not stated in the document.
      • Indian concerns engaged in multi-jurisdictional structures should track the rules to be prescribed and preserve relevant records to comply promptly when the authority demands information.

      Full Text:

      Section 506 Furnishing of information or documents by an Indian concern in certain cases

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax