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 LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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 LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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