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 SCHEDULE VIII "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      SCHEDULE VIII - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      SCHEDULE VIII (Bill, Old Version) lists categories of income that are excluded from the total income of political parties and electoral trusts for income-tax computation. It matters to registered political parties and electoral trusts, and to donors and tax authorities concerned with compliance and reporting. The document does not state an effective date. Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: "See section 12" (SCHEDULE VIII). The Schedule sets out a Table with three columns: (B) Income not to be included in total income, (C) Eligible persons, and (D) Conditions. The Schedule covers two entries: (1) certain incomes (house property, other sources, capital gains, and voluntary contributions) for political parties registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and (2) voluntary contributions for electoral trusts. The Schedule contains a Note defining "electoral bond" by reference to the Explanation to section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Schedule provides enumerated conditions attached to each exclusion. No other definitions or extended explanations are provided. Not stated in the document: legislative intent beyond the text; effective date; interaction with other income-tax provisions beyond the internal cross-references provided.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule exempts specified categories of income from inclusion in total income for eligible political parties and electoral trusts. For political parties (registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951), the exempt incomes include: income chargeable under "Income from house property," "Income from other sources," "Capital gains," and "any income by way of voluntary contributions received from any person." For electoral trusts, the exempt income is "any voluntary contributions received."

      Coverage is limited to "eligible person" as defined in column C of the Table; eligibility for a political party is tied to registration under the cited section; for an electoral trust, the table simply identifies "An electoral trust." The Note supplies a cross-statutory definition relevant to electoral bonds.

      Interpretation

      The Schedule conditions the exemption on compliance requirements contained in column D. The text indicates a legislative intent to condition tax benefits on maintenance of records, audit, restricted modes of receipt for small donations, reporting obligations under the Representation of the People Act, and, for electoral trusts, distribution and regulatory compliance. The use of cross-references to specific sections of the Representation of the People Act suggests a statutory integration of electoral reporting and income-tax treatment. The Schedule uses prescriptive compliance criteria rather than blanket immunity, signalling a policy to incentivise transparency and traceability of political funding.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause (d) caps small-donation anonymity: "no donation exceeding Rs. 2,000 is received ... otherwise than by an account payee cheque ... or through electoral bond." Thus donations <= Rs. 2,000 may be received in other modes; donations > Rs. 2,000 must be through specified financial instruments. Clause (b) requires a record of voluntary contributions other than electoral bonds in excess of Rs. 20,000, including the name and address of the contributor. For electoral trusts, clause (a) mandates distribution of 95% of aggregate donations in the tax year (plus any earlier surplus) to political parties during that tax year. Clause (b) requires that the electoral trust function according to Central Government rules.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A registered political party receives Rs. 50,000 as a voluntary contribution by cheque and has maintained books, audited accounts, kept contributor records where required, submitted the report u/s 29C(3), and filed the tax return as required. The contribution would be excluded from total income under the Schedule subject to compliance. (Derived from clauses (a)-(f).)
      • Example 2: An electoral trust receives Rs. 1 crore in donations in the tax year and distributes Rs. 95 lakh to registered political parties during that year and functions per Central Government rules. The Rs. 1 crore of voluntary contributions is not included in total income under the Schedule, assuming compliance. (Derived from electoral trust clauses.)
      • Example 3: A political party receives a cash donation of Rs. 5,000 in hand (i.e., not by cheque or electronic mode). Under clause (d) such a receipt would contravene the prohibition (since exceeding Rs. 2,000 received otherwise than by specified modes), potentially jeopardising the exemption for that donation or the party's entitlement under the Schedule. (Derived from clause (d).)

      Interplay

      The Schedule cross-references provisions of the Representation of the People Act (section 29(a); section 29C(3)) and the Reserve Bank of India Act (Explanation to sub-section (3) of section 31). It also requires compliance with section 263(1)(a)(iii) for return furnishing. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited in the Bill text beyond the general reference that electoral trusts must function as per Central Government rules. The Schedule thus relies on external statutory and regulatory instruments for definitional and compliance content. Specific interaction details (e.g., precedence where Schedule conditions conflict with other tax provisions) are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Versions and Practical Impact

      • Reference to Representation of the People Act-Section numbering: The Bill (Old Version) refers to a political party "registered u/s 29(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," whereas the Act text (Income-tax Act, 2025) refers to a political party "registered u/s 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951."
        • Practical impact: The Act version corrects or alters the cross-reference. If the Bill reference (29(a)) was erroneous, the Act version aligns the income-exemption to the correct statutory registration provision, avoiding uncertainty about eligible entities. This is a drafting/clarificatory change; no substantive shift to eligibility is apparent from the texts themselves.
      • Prescription language regarding electronic mode: The Bill uses the phrase "as prescribed" in clause (d) (Bill: "as prescribed"), while the Act uses "as may be prescribed" (Act: "as may be prescribed").
        • Practical impact: Minimal substantive difference; "as may be prescribed" is the more conventional enabling language for delegated legislation, clarifying that the electronic modes will be specified by rule-making authority. It likely strengthens the permissive legislative footing for future rules.
      • Return filing cross-references and due dates: The Bill requires the political party to furnish a return "as per the provisions of section 263(1)(a)(iii) on or before the due date under that section." The Act requires furnishing "as per the provisions of section 263(1)(a)(iii) and 263(2) on or before the due date referred to in section 263(1)(c)."
        • Practical impact: The Act adds an additional cross-reference to section 263(2) and specifies the due date provision more precisely (263(1)(c)). This tightens the statutory compliance framework by pointing to an additional subsection and a precise due-date clause, potentially expanding or clarifying filing obligations and consequences for non-compliance.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Political parties must maintain books of account and documentary records sufficient for an Assessing Officer to determine income; failure may lead to denial of exemption. Specific risks include non-receipt through prescribed modes for donations over Rs. 2,000, failure to record contributor details for contributions over Rs. 20,000 (other than electoral bonds), and failure to secure an audit. Electoral trusts must ensure timely distribution of 95% of receipts to preserve tax treatment; failure to distribute may endanger exemption. These obligations create audit and reporting exposure for both entities.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Schedule explicitly requires maintenance of books and records, contributor name and address for relevant donations, and audit reports. Entities should retain bank evidence for account payee cheques/ drafts/electronic transfers and maintain documentation of electoral bond receipts. The Schedule itself prescribes these documentary requirements; procedural detail (forms, formats, retention period) is Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Schedule grants targeted income exclusions for registered political parties and electoral trusts, conditioned on specified transparency and procedural requirements.
      • Eligibility for exemption for political parties is tied to registration under a specified provision of the Representation of the People Act; accuracy of cross-references is material to eligibility determinations.
      • Donations above Rs. 2,000 must be received by specified financial instruments; donations above Rs. 20,000 (except electoral bonds) require recording of donor identity and address.
      • Electoral trusts must distribute 95% of receipts in the tax year to preserve the exclusion; they must also function under Central Government rules.
      • Audit of accounts and filing of returns (cross-referenced tax provisions) are preconditions for enjoying the benefits; failure to comply can jeopardise tax exemptions.
      • The Schedule relies on cross-statutory definitions (RBI Act) and electoral reporting (RPA provisions); operational detail is delegated to rules and external provisions.
      • Where the Bill's text is silent (effective date; specific procedural formats; penalties for non-compliance within the Schedule), the document states "Not stated in the document."

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE VIII - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL TRUSTS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax