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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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