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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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