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 536 "Repeal and savings." 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 536 Repeal and savings.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These two texts are versions of a transitional provision (Clause/Section 536) dealing with repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and savings arising from that repeal in the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025. They matter because they govern continuity of rights, obligations, pending proceedings, carry-forwards, deductions and other transitional arrangements when a new income-tax statute replaces the 1961 Act. The principal actors affected are taxpayers (individuals, companies, cooperatives, amalgamated/successor entities) and revenue authorities. Effective dates referenced in the texts include commencement of the new Act and 1 April 2026 (and in one text a reference to 1 April 2025); specific effective timing is stated in the texts where present.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: repeal of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and application of transitional savings. Both texts are framed as a single clause titled "Repeal and savings" that seeks to preserve prior actions, proceedings and entitlements despite repeal. The documents enumerate specific categories: pending and future proceedings in respect of pre-1 April 2026 tax years; penalty proceedings; elections/options; refunds and interest; recovery of sums; carry-forwards of tax credits, losses and depreciation allowances; certain deductions and deferred revenue expenditure; treatment of notified schemes; and searches/requisitions u/ss 132/132A of the repealed Act. The documents contain tables listing sources/heads of income and corresponding repealed Act sections for loss carry-forward. Where definitions or explanatory definitions would normally appear, the texts do not provide definitions beyond referring to the "repealed Income-tax Act" and corresponding provisions of "this Act".

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause repeals the Income-tax Act, 1961 and provides detailed savings to preserve prior operations: prior actions, rights, obligations, pending proceedings and proceedings in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026; penalty proceedings; elections/options made under the repealed Act; interest rules for refunds and defaults; recovery of sums; continuance of agreements, appointments, approvals, circulars, notifications, rules and schemes (subject to consistency with corresponding provisions); carry-forward and set-off of specified losses and credits (including under specified repealed sections such as 71B, 72, 73, 73A, 74A, 74, 72A, 72AB, 115JAA and 115JD); carry-forward of capital losses for up to eight succeeding financial years where originally allowed u/s 74; special treatment of allowances u/ss 32(2)/35(4) and specific deductions referred to in enumerated repealed sections; and continuation of search/requisition proceedings begun u/ss 132/132A. The clause also invokes section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for the effect of repeal.

      Interpretation

      The text evidences legislative intent to achieve continuity and to minimise disruption caused by repeal: rights and liabilities are preserved, pending and certain future proceedings related to pre-cut-off tax years are to be governed by the repealed procedural rules, and substantive tax positions (losses, credits, deductions) are carried forward and recognised under corresponding provisions in the new Act. The clause uses deeming language ("shall be deemed to have been", "shall continue to apply", "shall be deemed to be") to effect technical carryovers. Where the new Act lacks corresponding provisions, specific fallback sections in the new Act are identified for continuity of schemes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any express limitation on how long proceedings may be continued under the repealed Act apart from references to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026. Not stated in the document: transitional timelines for filing or service where procedural rules differ between the statutes, other than the general preservation language. Not stated in the document: any express power to adapt forms, fees or procedural modalities to the new Act where proceedings are continued under the repealed Act.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A reassessment notice issued in respect of tax year 2023-24 that remains pending on commencement of the new Act will continue and be disposed of under the repealed Act's procedure.
      • Example 2: A capital loss arising in tax year 2024-25 brought forward u/s 74 of the repealed Act may be set off against capital gains for up to eight succeeding financial years as carried forward under the savings clause.
      • Example 3: A scheme notified under the repealed Act to eliminate interface with assessees will be treated as a scheme under the corresponding provision of the new Act (or under the fallback section specified in the new Act) and will remain in force to the extent not inconsistent.

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly cross-refers to specified sections of the repealed Act (listed in the table and in sub-clauses) and to corresponding provisions of the new Act (or specified fallback sections). It also invokes section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for guidance on effect of repeal. No other rules, notifications or circulars are expressly referenced beyond deeming prior notifications/circulars to continue where not inconsistent.

      Differences between the Document 1 "Section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025" and Document 2 "Clause 2 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old version)"

      • Scope of continuing proceedings (Document 1, sub-section (2)(c) vs Document 2, sub-section (2)(c)): Document 1 expressly preserves application of the repealed Act to any proceeding pending on commencement and to any proceedings "initiated on after the 1st April, 2026" in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, with such proceedings to be carried out under the repealed Act. Document 2 preserves proceedings in respect of tax years beginning before 1 April 2026, but omits the explicit phrase preserving proceedings initiated after 1 April 2026.
        • Practical impact: Document 1 more clearly authorises procedural continuation under the repealed Act even for proceedings that are initiated after 1 April 2026 so long as they concern pre-1 April 2026 tax years; Document 2 may be read as narrower, potentially raising interpretive questions about proceedings commenced after the cut-off date and whether they must follow the new Act's procedure. The wider formulation in Document 1 reduces transitional uncertainty for authorities and taxpayers about which procedure applies to late-initiated matters relating to earlier tax years.
      • Temporal reference for searches/requisitions (Document 1 sub-section (2)(v) vs Document 2 sub-section (2)(v)): Document 1 preserves application of repealed Act provisions to searches/requisitions "initiated u/s 132 or requisition u/s 132A prior to the commencement of this Act" (no fixed calendar date). Document 2 limits preservation to searches/requisitions initiated "prior to the 1st April, 2026."
        • Practical impact: Document 1 ties preservation to the Act's commencement date (which may differ from 1 April 2026), allowing flexibility if commencement occurs on a date other than 1 April 2026; Document 2 fixes the calendar date 1 April 2026. The difference affects which searches/requisitions are governed by the repealed Act versus the new Act when commencement and 1 April 2026 diverge.
      • Reference to tax year 2025 vs corresponding previous year (Document 1 sub-section (3) vs Document 2 sub-section (3)): Document 1 includes an additional sub-section (3) stating that where this Act refers to any tax year commencing on 1 April 2025 or earlier, such reference shall be construed as reference to the corresponding previous year under the repealed Act. Document 2's sub-section (3) does not include this; instead it only applies section 6 of the General Clauses Act (as its third paragraph).
        • Practical impact: Document 1 supplies an express rule for translating certain tax-year references into the repealed Act's framing, which reduces ambiguity in cross-references to earlier tax years; Document 2 lacks that express translator which could lead to interpretive disputes about corresponding previous years where year-naming conventions differ between Acts.
      • Corrections and internal textual differences: Document 2 contains editorial "NOTES" indicating corrections to specific phrases (e.g., "hereinafter" corrected to "herein", consistent use of "repealed Income-tax Act"), and some sub-clause numbering and cross-references differ (examples: section numbers cited in certain provisos are slightly different between texts). Document 1 appears as a finalized Act text with some expanded cross-references (e.g., explicit inclusion of "recomputation" in list in (2)(c)).
        • Practical impact: Editorial corrections in Document 2 show drafting adjustments; Document 1's finalized phrasing and added particulars (e.g., recomputation) clarify procedural items that affect how authorities and taxpayers identify covered actions. The more expansive list in Document 1 reduces dispute as to whether specific procedures are covered by the savings clause.
      • Treatment of schemes and corresponding section references: Document 1 deems schemes notified under the repealed Act to have been made under corresponding provisions of the new Act or u/s 532 if no corresponding provision exists; Document 2 contains the same idea but refers to section 294B where there is no corresponding provision.
        • Practical impact: The alternate fallback section numbering (532 vs 294B) changes where residual schemes are placed in the new statute; this has practical consequences for the administrative basis under which such schemes will operate and for legal challenge-users must check which fallback is actually enacted to know which administrative head applies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers and advisors must identify which tax years are "before 1 April 2026" to determine whether the repealed Act's rules govern ongoing matters. Where Document 1 language is used, additional certainty exists for proceedings initiated after commencement but relating to earlier years. Ambiguities in cross-references (e.g., fallback sections for schemes) require attention to the final enacted numbering and text.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain full records of elections/options made under the repealed Act; documentation to support incurred deductions and conditions attached to them; evidence supporting loss computations and dates when losses were first computed; records of notices, assessments, appeals, search/requisition initiation dates to determine which procedural regime applies.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause seeks to ensure continuity by preserving substantive entitlements and procedural treatment for matters tied to tax years beginning before 1 April 2026.
      • Document 1 contains broader and more explicit transitional language (e.g., proceedings initiated after 1 April 2026 and a commencement-based reference for searches), reducing interpretive gaps present in Document 2.
      • Carry-forwards (losses, credits, depreciation, certain deductions) are preserved and migrated to corresponding provisions of the new Act subject to satisfying corresponding conditions.
      • Notified schemes and prior administrative acts continue where not inconsistent, but the applicable fallback provision differs between versions (section 532 vs 294B), affecting administrative placement.
      • Taxpayers and administrators should secure contemporaneous evidence of elections, losses, and initiation dates of proceedings or searches to determine applicable law and avoid transitional disputes.

      Full Text:

      Section 536 Repeal and savings.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax