Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 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
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. 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
    Act Rules Bills
    Jurisdictional Framework for Tax Prosecutions : Clause 496 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Designation and functioning of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the proposed legislati...
    Act Rules Bills
    Legal Protections against Unauthorized Disclosure in Indian Tax Law : Clause 494 of Income Tax Bill,...
    Act Rules Bills
    Proof of Official Entries in Tax Prosecutions : Clause 493 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Comparative Review of Non-Cognizable Offences in Indian Income Tax Legislation : Clause 492 of the I...
    Act Rules Bills
    Safeguards and Procedures in Income Tax Prosecution : Clause 491 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
❮
❯
❯❯
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:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts centralises tax prosecutions, with cognizance only on authorised complaints.
Clause 496 mandates exclusive trial of income tax offences by designated Special Courts, subject to actual designation for relevant areas or classes of cases, and contains a non obstante provision giving it overriding effect over the general criminal procedure code. Cognizance by a Special Court is restricted to complaints filed by authorities authorised under the Act. Transitional rules preserve continuity by allowing designated courts to continue existing and future trials and permitting non designated courts to finish pending matters; the clause cross references the Bill's procedural provision to align competence within the reorganised statute.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Special Courts designation enables focused, consolidated trials for tax offences and aligns procedure with the new criminal code.
Clause 495 empowers the Central Government, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to notify one or more courts of Judicial Magistrate of the first class as Special Courts for specified areas, cases or classes of cases to try offences under the Income Tax Bill, 2025; it permits these Special Courts to try related offences joined at the same trial under the applicable criminal procedure and updates procedural references to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while preserving the core scheme of Section 280A.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Unauthorized disclosure by public servants criminalised; prosecution requires Central Government sanction and carries imprisonment and fine.
Clause 494 criminalises unauthorized furnishing of taxpayer information or production of documents by a public servant in contravention of the Bill's secrecy provision, prescribes imprisonment and fine, and requires prior sanction of the Central Government before prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of official tax records: certified copies allowed as evidence, easing prosecution while preserving challenge rights.
Clause 493 mandates that entries in records or documents in the custody of an income-tax authority "shall be admitted in evidence" in prosecution proceedings under the chapter and permits proof either by production of the original records or by production of a certified copy signed by the custodian stating it is a true copy and that the originals are in its custody. The clause covers varied formats of records, limits application to criminal proceedings under the chapter, and preserves courts' power to test genuineness and require originals where fairness demands.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Non-cognizable classification of specified tax offences requires magistrate sanction before arrest or investigation, limiting summary enforcement.
Clause 492 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 designates specified income tax offences as non-cognizable for purposes of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by means of a non-obstante provision. As a result, arrest cannot be effected without a magistrate-issued warrant and investigations into those offences require prior magistrate authorization, imposing judicial gatekeeping at the threshold of criminal proceedings and constraining unilateral police action in tax enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Prior sanction for tax prosecution centralises oversight, enables compounding, and restricts arbitrary criminal initiation against taxpayers.
Clause 491 makes prior sanction by designated senior officers a precondition to prosecution for specified tax offences, authorises senior regional heads and the Board to issue directions, permits compounding of offences at any stage by senior officials, bars prosecution where specified penalties have been reduced or waived, and affirms that statements or documents given to tax authorities remain admissible notwithstanding an expectation of penalty reduction or compounding.
Act Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of section 511 "Furnishing of report in respect of international group." 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 511 Furnishing of report in respect of international group

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

The document reproduces Clause 511 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version, setting out reporting obligations for constituent entities of international groups (country-by-country reporting style). It matters for multinational groups with Indian resident constituent entities - both taxpayers (resident constituent entities, parent entities, alternate reporting entities) and the tax administration. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Clause 511 sits within miscellaneous provisions of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and proposes a standalone reporting obligation for "international groups". The clause creates duties to notify the prescribed income-tax authority and to furnish reports containing consolidated and constituent-level financial and operational information. Definitions and scope are provided within the clause itself. Any subordinate rules, forms, timelines and thresholds are to be set out "as prescribed" (delegated rule-making).

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 511 imposes three principal obligations:

  • Notification (sub-section (1)): Every constituent entity resident in India that is part of an international group whose parent is not resident in India must notify the prescribed income-tax authority in the prescribed form and manner by the prescribed date whether it is the alternate reporting entity and/or provide details of the parent or alternate reporting entity and their jurisdictions.
  • Reporting (sub-section (2)): Every parent entity or alternate reporting entity resident in India must, for each reporting accounting year, furnish a report to the prescribed income-tax authority within twelve months from the end of that reporting accounting year, in the prescribed form and manner.
  • Fallback reporting (sub-section (4)): Where an Indian resident constituent entity is not the parent/alternate reporting entity, it must furnish the report within a prescribed period if the parent is resident in a jurisdiction that (a) is not obligated to file such a report; (b) lacks an agreement with India for exchange of the report; or (c) has experienced a "systemic failure" and that failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Sub-sections (3) and (6) detail report content and exceptions; (7) grants the authority the power to issue notices and require supporting information; (8) provides a consolidated-revenue threshold exemption; and (9) permits application "as prescribed".

Interpretation

The text indicates a legislative intent to implement a country-by-country reporting regime targeted at large international groups with constituent entities resident in India. The use of express definitions (e.g., "consolidated financial statement", "parent entity", "constituent entity", "reporting accounting year") demonstrates an intent to align reporting obligations with financial reporting and with international standards for transfer pricing transparency. Several interpretive principles are signalled by the text: alignment with parent-jurisdiction financial periods, deference to prescribed forms and procedures, and reliance on intergovernmental agreements for automatic exchange.

Exceptions/Provisos

Key carve-outs and conditions:

  • Threshold exemption (sub-section (8)): The section will not apply if the total consolidated group revenue for the preceding accounting year does not exceed the prescribed amount - the specific monetary threshold is Not stated in the document.
  • Non-application where an alternate reporting entity files in its jurisdiction and certain conditions are met (sub-section (6)): Conditions include the foreign report being required by local law, presence of an exchange agreement between that country and India, absence of any systemic failure communicated by the Indian authority, written designation of the alternate reporting entity, and prior notification under sub-section (1). These are cumulative preconditions.
  • Fallback allocation where multiple Indian resident constituent entities exist (sub-section (5)): If more than one Indian constituent entity exists, any one designated entity may furnish the report provided the group has designated that entity and the information has been conveyed in writing to the prescribed authority.

Illustrations

  • Example 1: A multinational group with a non-resident parent and one Indian subsidiary that is designated as the alternate reporting entity must notify the income-tax authority in India and, if resident as alternate reporting entity, file the report within 12 months of the reporting accounting year end. (All procedural details - forms/timelines - are Not stated in the document.)
  • Example 2: An Indian permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise that prepares separate financial statements as a PE falls within "constituent entity" and, if the foreign parent's jurisdiction neither files nor exchanges reports with India, that Indian PE may be required to furnish the report within the prescribed period. (Precise prescribed period is Not stated in the document.)

Interplay

The clause expressly contemplates interaction with:

  • Section 159(1) or (2) (via the definition of "agreement") - signalling reliance on specified intergovernmental agreements for exchange.
  • Section 173(c) (for the meaning of "permanent establishment").
  • Prescribed rules/guidelines/conditions that remain to be issued for form, manner, dates and thresholds. The document does not reproduce any subordinate rules or forms. Specific interactions with existing transfer-pricing or information-exchange regimes are Not stated in the document beyond the express reference to agreements for exchange.

Differences between the Document 1 "Section 511 of Income-tax Act, 2025" and Document 2 "Clause 511 - Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version"

  • Prescription wording: Document 1 repeatedly uses the phrase "as may be prescribed" (e.g., sub-sects (1), (2), (3), (9)), whereas Document 2 often uses the shorter "as prescribed".
    • Practical impact: negligible substantive difference in content; "as may be prescribed" can imply delegation to subordinate legislation, while "as prescribed" is more neutral - both indicate delegated rule-making. In practice, stakeholders should expect rules/guidelines to be issued regardless.
  • Minor phrasing differences: e.g., Document 1 in sub-section (4)(c) reads "where there has been a systemic failure of the country or territory and such failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority to such constituent entity" while Document 2 reads "where there has been a systemic failure and such failure has been intimated by the prescribed income-tax authority to such constituent entity."
    • Practical impact: none substantive; the enacted text in Document 1 clarifies that the systemic failure is of the foreign country/territory, but Document 2's meaning would be read the same way in context.
  • Overall: there are no material substantive differences in obligations, definitions, thresholds or exceptions between the two texts provided. The principal practical impact arises from the change in status from a Bill clause (Document 2) to an enacted statutory section (Document 1) and minor drafting refinements that preserve the same legal obligations and delegated-rulemaking expectation.

Practical Implications

  • Compliance and risk areas: Indian resident constituent entities of international groups must track whether their group's parent is resident outside India, determine whether they are designated as alternate reporting entity, and ensure timely notification to the prescribed income-tax authority. Parent or alternate reporting entities resident in India must prepare and file the prescribed report within 12 months of the reporting accounting year end. Failure to notify or file may expose entities to compliance actions under the Act and to information requests under sub-section (7).
  • Record-keeping/evidence: The text requires aggregated country-level financial and operational metrics and constituent-level details; accordingly, entities will need robust consolidated financial statements, country allocation methodologies, documentation of designation as alternate reporting entity, and written communications to the Indian authority. The precise content and format are "as prescribed" and therefore entities must monitor subordinate instruments for technical compliance requirements (not specified in the Bill text).

Key Takeaways

  • Clause 511 establishes country-by-country style reporting obligations for international groups with Indian resident constituent entities.
  • There is a dual duty: initial notification by Indian resident constituent entities (where parent is non-resident) and annual reporting by Indian parent/alternate reporting entities within 12 months of reporting accounting year end.
  • Fallback reporting obligations apply to Indian resident constituent entities if the parent's jurisdiction does not file, does not exchange, or has a communicated systemic failure.
  • Exemptions hinge on a consolidated revenue threshold for the preceding year; the specific threshold is to be prescribed and is Not stated in the document.
  • The power to request supporting information and documents within defined timelines is provided to the prescribed income-tax authority.
  • Many operational details (form, manner, prescribed dates, exact thresholds) are left to delegated rules; stakeholders must monitor rule-making for compliance specifics.

Full Text:

Section 511 Furnishing of report in respect of international group

Topics

Acts Income Tax