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
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 ✕
🔎 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
    Case LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Rationalization of prosecution proceedings

      1 February, 2026

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Union Budget 2026-27 - Finance Bill, 2026

      Income-tax Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) has various provisions in chapter XXII which imposes criminal liability on assessee and prescribes imprisonment including rigorous imprisonment which span from three months to seven years for various offences including falsification of books of accounts, failure to credit TDS/TCS deducted, tendering false statement, wilful attempt to evade tax, failure to furnish return within due time, abatement of false return, removal/concealment/transfer of property to evade recovery of tax, failure to follow certain directions of AO, etc.

      2. Section 473 to 485 prescribe various offences on the part of assessee and form and manner of punishment and the conditions therein including time limitation, exceptions, threshold for amount of tax evaded and its punishment, punishment for subsequent offences, etc.

      3. Section 473 deals with the contravention of order made under section 247(Search & Seizure) by the assessee in an attempt to derail the search proceedings and tamper with the evidence. At the same time, section 474 deals with the offence of not providing the necessary facility to inspect the books of account of other documents during search proceedings. Section 475 penalises the assessee in case of offence of removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property to prevent tax recovery.

      4. Section 476 criminalises the offence of not crediting the TDS deducted in the account of Central Government. This section covers four offences which are TDS deducted for winnings from lottery, crossword puzzle; winning from online games; benefit or perquisite arising from business or profession; sum for transfer of a virtual digital asset. In the similar manner, section 477 deals with tax collected at source but not credited to the account of Central Government.

      5. Section 478 deals with the offence of wilful attempt to evade any tax, penalty or under reporting of income and payment of any tax, penalty or interest. Section 479 criminalises the offence to failure to furnish return either by issuance of notice under this Act or otherwise. In the similar manner, section 480 penalises the offence of failure to furnish return in search cases.

      6. In case, assessee failed to produce the books of accounts or other documents or failed to follow direction of Assessing Officer, section 481 criminalises this offence. In case, a person makes false statement or delivers an account which is false, section 482 prescribes punishment for this offence. Section 483 penalises the offence of falsification of books of accounts or documents or made entry or statement which is false in books of account. Section 484 deals with offence of abatement of false return wherein person makes or delivers an account or statement relating to any income which is false. Further, section 485 deals with second and subsequent offences. Section 494 deals with disclosure of particulars by public servants.

      7. In this regard, it is proposed to amend Section 473 to 485 & 494 of the Act in light of continued exercise of decriminalisation and to make the punishment for the offences mentioned in these sections proportionate to the crimes. The principles that are followed in the proposed decriminalization exercise are as follows:

      (a) The nature of punishment is changed from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment wherever prescribed in the sections mentioned above.

      (b) Maximum punishment is proposed to be limited to 2 years from its current 7 year and for the subsequent offences, it is reduced to 3 years from its current 7 years.

      (c) Wherever punishment of offences is prescribed based on certain grading of amount of tax evaded, new grading of offences and its corresponding punishment is prescribed.

      (d) For amount of tax evaded does not exceeds ten lakh rupees, punishment of only fine is prescribed.

      (e) Imposition of fine is introduced in lieu of or in addition of imprisonment.

      (f) Certain offences are fully decriminalized.

      8. Following changes in the nature and period of punishment in section 473 to 485 & 494 are proposed based on the principles of decriminalisation followed as discussed in para 7:

      (a) In section 473, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 473 is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine” to “simple imprisonment upto two years and fine”.

      (b) In section 474, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 474 is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine” to “simple imprisonment upto 6 months and/or fine”.

      (c) In section 475, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 475 is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine” to “simple imprisonment upto two years and fine”.

      (d) In case of offences related to tax deducted at source (TDS):

      (i) If a person fails to pay the tax deducted at source or ensures the payment of such tax, in case of winnings from Lottery or crossword puzzle etc. as required under section 476(1)(b)(i) and if a person fails to pay and ensure payment of tax deducted at source in case of benefits or perquisite under section 476(1)(b)(ii) then the punishment for these offences is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years, and with fine. These offences are proposed to be fully decriminalized.

      (ii) Further, in similar manner, if a person fails to pay tax deducted at source or ensure payment of tax in case of winnings from online games under section 476(1)(b)(i) and consideration from virtual digital asset under section 476(1)(b)(ii) then these offences attract punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years, and with fine. In these cases, winnings from online games and consideration from virtual digital asset which are wholly in kind are also proposed to be excluded from criminal liability related to prosecution in case of failure to pay tax or ensure payment of tax. In any other case, punishment in these cases under section 476 is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where amount of such tax exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where amount of such tax exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (e) In section 477, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 477 is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years, and with fine. This punishment is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (i) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where amount of such tax exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (ii) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months or with fine, or with both, in a case where amount of such tax exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (iii) with fine, in any other case.30

      (f) In case of wilful attempt to evade tax,

      (i) In section 478(1), punishment for the offences as mentioned under section 478(1) is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount sought to be evaded or tax on under-reported income exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount sought to be evaded or tax on under-reported income exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (ii) In section 478(2), punishment of offences under section 478(2) is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (g) In section 479, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 479(1) is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (h) In section 480, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 480 is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:31

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (i) In section 481, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 481 is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) in the case where a person wilfully fails to produce, or cause to be produced, the accounts and documents as are referred to in the notice served on him under section 268(1) on or before the date specified in such notice, this provision under section 481 is proposed to be fully decriminalised.

      (b) in the case where a person wilfully fails to comply with a direction issued to him under section 268(5), the punishment is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and with fine” to simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both.

      (j) In section 482, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 482 is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (a) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (b) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (c) with fine, in any other case.

      (k) In section 483, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 483(1) is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years and with fine” to “simple imprisonment for a term upto two years and shall also be liable to fine”.

      (l) In section 484, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 484 is proposed to be changed in the manner given below:

      (i) with simple imprisonment for a term upto two years, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have32 been evaded, if the declaration, account or statement had been accepted as true, or which is wilfully attempted to be evaded, exceeds fifty lakh rupees;

      (ii) with simple imprisonment for a term upto six months, or with fine, or with both, in a case where the amount of tax, penalty or interest which would have been evaded, if the declaration, account or statement had been accepted as true, or which is wilfully attempted to be evaded, exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees;

      (iii) with fine, in any other case.

      (m) In section 485, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 485 is proposed to be changed from its current “rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years, and with fine” to “simple imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine”.

      (n) In section 494, punishment for the offences mentioned under section 494(1) is proposed to be changed from its current “imprisonment which may extend to six months, and shall also be liable to fine” to “simple imprisonment upto one month, or with fine, or with both”.

      9. Heading of sections in following sections of the Act is proposed to be aligned with the Act and further simplify the Act:

      (a) In section 473, heading of the section is changed to “Contravention of order made during search action”.

      (b) In section 474, heading of the section is changed to “Failure to afford facility for inspection of books of account during search”.

      (c) In section 478, heading of the section is changed to “Failure to comply with a direction of special audit or valuation”.

      10. Similar principles as referred in para 7 has been followed to make amendments of similar nature as referred in para 8 & 9 in relevant prosecution provisions i.e. section 275A to 278A & 280 of Income-tax Act, 1961.

      11. The amendments in section 473 to 485 & 494 of Income-tax Act, 2025 will take effect from the 1st day of April, 2026.

      12. The amendments in section 275A to 278A & 280 of Income-tax Act, 1961 will take effect from the 1st day of March, 2026.

      [Clause 17 to 25 and clause 93 to 105]

       


      Full Text:

      Union Budget 2026-27 - Finance Bill, 2026

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax