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
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENT TO SEVENTH SCHEDULE TO THE FINANCE ACT, 2001
    NewsBill
    EXEMPTION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY ON VALUE OF BIOGAS/COMPRESSED BIOGAS (CBG) CONTAINED IN BLENDED C...
    NewsBill
    DEFERMENT OF DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHER EXCISE DUTY ON SALE OF UNBLENDED DIESEL
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE CGST ACT, 2017
    NewsBill
    AMENDMENTS IN THE IGST ACT, 2017
    Intermediary Services Under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and Export of Services Under Section 2(6):...
    Distinction Between Setting Aside an Illegal Bail Order and Cancellation of Bail: Revisional Scrutin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153C (Finance Act, 2015) and Third-Party Search Assessments: Interplay of Belongs To and Per...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Effect of Section 92CA(1) Reference on Assessment Limitation: Application of Section 153(4) in Trans...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Digital Material Recovered in Search under Section 132 and Its Nexus with the Non-Searched Person: C...
    Refund Disputes Linked to Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B): Consequences of Omission of Rules Without Exp...
    Service Mechanisms (for Notices and SCN) in GST: Deemed Service, Portal Availability, and Statutory ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Due Compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Admissibility of Electronic Records...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Sequential Application of the General Rules for Interpretation in Customs Tariff Classification unde...
    Section 74 CGST Proceedings and the Impermissibility of Clubbing Multiple Financial Years in a Singl...
    Composite Show Cause Notices Under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the Requirement of Tax-Perio...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Reverse Burden, Ownership Attribution, and Proof in Gold Seizure Cases: Reaffirming Procedural Safeg...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 68, Loan Credits, and the Limits of Suspicion: Evidentiary Discipline in Search-Linked Asses...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    JAO vs. FAO: Reassessment in the Faceless Era: The Continuing Validity of JAO Jurisdiction Pending S...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour, Tax Compliance, and Judicial Reform: Legally Enforceable Debt and Procedural Innov...
❯❯
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
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Chewing and related tobacco NCCD schedule rates raised to 60% from May 1, 2026, while effective rate stays 25%.
    Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 2001 is amended to raise NCCD rates from 25% to 60% for HS 2403 99 10 (chewing tobacco), HS 2403 99 30 (jarda scented tobacco) and HS 2403 99 90 (other tobacco products including gutkha) effective 01.05.2026, while a notification will maintain the applied effective rate at 25%.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Biogas/CBG in blended CNG: value and related taxes excluded from transaction value for central excise from 02.02.2026.
    The value of Biogas/Compressed Biogas (CBG) contained in blended CNG, and the central, state, union territory or integrated taxes paid on that Biogas/CBG, are excluded from the transaction value for computing central excise duty on blended CNG; the exclusion is effected by amending the existing notification framework and takes effect from 02.02.2026, with the prior GST-only relief rescinded.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Unblended diesel additional excise duty implementation deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment to existing notification effective immediately.
    The additional excise duty of Rs.2 per litre on unblended diesel is deferred until 31.03.2028 by amendment of Notification No. 11/2017 Central Excise through Notification No. 02/2026 Central Excise (01.02.2026), thereby postponing the levy of the higher duty on unblended diesel.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Goods and Services Tax: amendments remove discount-agreement link, expand refund scope, and allow interim appellate authorities.
    Amendments remove the requirement that a post-sale discount be linked to an agreement and prescribe issuance of a credit note under section 34 when input tax credit is reversed; section 34 is amended to reference section 15. Section 54 is amended to extend provisional refunds to inverted duty structure claims and to remove the sanction threshold for refunds on exported goods with tax paid. Section 101A gains sub-section (1A) allowing the Central Government to notify an existing authority or tribunal to hear appeals under section 101B pending the National Appellate Authority, with sub-sections (2)-(13) not applying where such empowerment occurs, effective 01.04.2026.
    NewsBill
    Show AI Summary
    Place of supply for intermediary services will follow the IGST Act default provision after omission of the specific clause.
    The amendment omits clause (b) of sub section (8) of section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 so that the place of supply for intermediary services will be determined by the default provision in section 13(2) of the IGST Act, aligning intermediary services with the Act's general place of supply framework.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Education consultancy commissions treated as exportable services, not intermediary services, where foreign institution is the contracting recipient.
    The Court held that the intermediary test focuses on whether a person merely "arranges or facilitates" a supply, excluding those who supply on their own account; where agreements and consideration establish a principal-to-principal supply to foreign educational institutions, the services qualify as export of services and not intermediary services, making place of supply the recipient's location and supporting refund entitlement.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST arrests: Court set aside bail premised on format defects where substantive compliance and no demonstrable prejudice existed.
    The High Court held that a challenge to the legal sustainability of a bail order is distinct from cancellation for supervening conduct and, on the facts, found substantive compliance with CGST arrest safeguards (including authorisation recording reasons to believe and supply of arrest memo and grounds) and BNSS Sections 47-48 when assessed through a prejudice oriented test; absence of statutory headings or non enclosure of detailed grounds with the relative did not, without demonstrable prejudice, justify the magistrate's bail order, which was set aside and the bail bonds cancelled with liberty to apply afresh.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 153C: amended trigger applies if seized material is received post amendment, widening third party assessment scope.
    The substituted text widens the jurisdictional trigger for third party assessments from strict ownership to where books or documents "pertain to" or contain information that "relates to" the other person; the first proviso's deeming fiction makes the date of receipt of seized material by the other person's Assessing Officer the operative reference point, so if receipt, satisfaction and issuance of notice occur after the amendment, the amended provision governs, subject to the requirement of recorded satisfaction that the material bears on determination of total income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing assessments: outer statutory limitation governs final orders; DRP deadlines do not enlarge the overall limitation.
    The tribunal permitted admission of additional legal grounds based on facts on record and held that the outer statutory limitation governs final assessments in eligible-assessee transfer pricing cases. The dispute-resolution procedural deadline requires prompt action after directions but does not enlarge the overall limitation; statutory extension available for transfer pricing references is to be applied to the outer limit, and external judicial limitation extensions do not extend the time for completing original assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Digital material recovered in a third party search cannot alone justify invoking Section 153C without a direct nexus to the non searched person.
    Section 153C jurisdiction requires seized or requisitioned books of account or documents from a search that relate to or pertain to a non searched person; digital images recovered in a third party search that did not name or connect the petitioners could not sustain Section 153C. The Assessing Officer's reliance on post search forms, voluntary supply of documents, public domain inquiries, and an inferential consideration mismatch rendered the recorded satisfaction de hors the statutory trigger, allowing writ relief for jurisdictional defect.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST refund and recovery proceedings founded solely on omitted rules lapse absent express saving clause.
    Omission of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) without an express saving clause causes pending proceedings and non-final orders founded solely on those rules to lapse, except for transactions past and closed. The General Clauses Act's preservation principle does not apply to omissions effected by subordinate rules/notification, and transitional or laying provisions of the parent statute do not operate as omnibus saving clauses. Consequently, undisposed show cause notices and orders dependent only on the omitted rules were quashed and affected refund applications were remitted for reconsideration after hearing within a stipulated period.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST electronic service by portal or email may not trigger appeal limitation absent verifiable communication or retrieval evidence.
    Whether portal upload or e-mail intimation automatically triggers the limitation period under Section 107 depends on whether such electronic modes fall within the statutory deeming fictions of Section 169(2) or Section 169(3). Although Section 169(1)(c)-(d) and Rule 142 permit electronic service, the express deeming consequences are confined to specified modes; absent acknowledgement or verifiable retrieval logs, IT Act presumptions of dispatch/receipt do not alone establish communication for appeal limitation.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic evidence admissibility in customs proceedings: contemporaneous extraction records and Section 108 statements can satisfy the certificate requirement.
    The Court held that contemporaneous extraction/printing records, device particulars, and un-retracted Section 108 statements acknowledging computer printouts can constitute substantive due compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; a certificate not in prescribed format will not automatically invalidate admissibility where authenticity is not disputed, while other statutory evidentiary issues (including Section 138B) remain open for adjudication.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Aluminium shelving classed by import condition: use allowed only if statutorily permitted; supports aren't parts at import.
    Classification requires sequentially applying GRI 1 with relevant Section and Chapter Notes; aligned HSN Explanatory Notes guide interpretation. Use is relevant only where permitted and must reflect intended use objectively evident at importation per the as imported principle. A "part" must have an essential functional nexus to machine operation; mere supporting platforms or shelves that do not contribute mechanically to operation are not parts and may instead fall under material-based structure headings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years misalign tax-period limitation and may be quashed.
    Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice covering distinct financial years was held impermissible because GST liability is tethered to tax-period returns and limitation timelines; consolidation misaligns period-specific adjudication clocks, constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and warrants quashing with liberty to re-issue notices in strict conformity with the period-wise statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Composite GST show cause notices aggregating multiple financial years lack scope; demands must be period-specific and limitation-linked.
    The GST demand-and-recovery framework is period-based: tax liability and limitation are tied to returns for each tax period or financial year, and limitation is computed from the annual return due date or an erroneous return for that year. Consolidating multiple financial years into one consolidated show cause notice is outside the statutory design and constitutes a jurisdictional defect; administrative advisories cannot override the period-specific statutory scheme. Authorities may, if no other impediment exists, initiate proceedings framed strictly period-wise under the applicable demand provisions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Gold/jewellery cases require mandatory section 138B admissibility for investigation statements before proving ownership or smuggling links.
    Section 138B creates a mandatory admissibility regime for section 108 investigation statements: unless clause (a) applies, the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority and an admissibility opinion recorded before using those statements to prove truth. Ownership cannot be fixed on an appellant where such statements are excluded, and confiscation/penalty theories for jewellery must follow the correct statutory route-section 111 for imported goods and section 120 when alleging goods are made from smuggled inputs. Documentary explanations require verification before rejection.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unsecured loans through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits absent transaction specific incriminating material.
    Unsecured bank routed loans cannot be treated as unexplained credits where the assessee produced confirmations, lender bank statements, audited accounts and tax filings, and the Assessing Officer relied chiefly on uncorroborated third party search statements or administrative press releases without transaction specific incriminating material. For years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, a generalized source of source obligation for loan credits is not mandated; repayments in the lender's account are distinct from fresh upstream borrowings. Appellate authorities may independently verify facts under their powers if the AO is given opportunity to respond.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment jurisdiction: both JAO and FAO held to have concurrent authority, pending apex resolution of the faceless regime.
    The Delhi High Court holds that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, construing Section 151A as administrative/enabling rather than jurisdiction-extinguishing. It reasons that routine SLP dismissals do not automatically create binding Article 141 precedent to overturn a coordinate-bench High Court view, and declines to treat the Delhi precedent as per incuriam absent a contrary Supreme Court ratio; interim apex stays are case-specific and do not displace the Delhi position.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Cheque dishonour cases: statutory presumptions preserved; tax breaches don't negate enforceability; procedural reforms directed.
    Once a cheque's execution is admitted, statutory presumptions of consideration and of a legally enforceable debt arise and, though rebuttable, the initial burden lies on the accused; unsupported claims of payer incapacity or a 'blank cheque' are insufficient without positive evidence. Breach of tax-related cash-transaction rules attracts fiscal penalties but does not render the underlying loan unenforceable for cheque-dishonour purposes. Revisional courts may not overturn concurrent factual findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error. Procedural reforms and calibrated compounding measures are directed to expedite and streamline Section 138 proceedings.

    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