Information-furnishing obligation: Indian concerns must produce prescribed documents when foreign interests derive value from India assets.
An information-furnishing obligation requires an Indian concern to provide prescribed information or documents to the prescribed income-tax authority when a foreign company's or entity's shares or interests derive substantially their value from assets located in India and those assets are held, directly or indirectly, through the Indian concern; specific documents, the authority, the period and the manner of furnishing are to be specified by subordinate prescription.

Reporting obligation for liaison offices: annual statement to tax authorities subject to deadlines and particulars as prescribed.
Non-residents with RBI/FEMA authorised liaison offices must annually prepare and deliver to the Assessing Officer a statement of the office's activities for the tax year in such form, containing such particulars and within such period as may be prescribed, with the deadline and particulars to be specified by subordinate legislation rather than fixed in the statute.

Provisional attachment protects revenue during assessments, requiring competent authority approval and revocation on provision of bank guarantees.
Clause 500 permits an Assessing Officer, with prior Competent Authority approval and by written order, to provisionally attach property during assessment, reassessment of escaped income or specified penalty proceedings; attachment follows the statutory attachment procedure and valuation by a Valuation Officer. Attachment is revocable on furnishing a scheduled bank guarantee generally equal to fair market value (or a lower guarantee if accepted); guarantees may be invoked on default. Temporal limits apply (initial six months with limited extensions) and proceeds are adjusted against existing demands with balances deposited in designated accounts.

Presumption as to assets extended to electronic information and computer systems when tendered as prosecutorial evidence.
The statute extends the evidentiary presumption applicable to assets, books of account and documents found in searches or taken into custody to include information in electronic form and computer systems, applying the presumptive framework when such items are tendered in evidence and qualifying that application by the phrase "so far as may be, apply"; the Act cross-references statutory definitions for electronic information and computer systems to ensure consistent meaning.

Karta liability and member culpability: members can be prosecuted regardless of Karta's due diligence defence under the revised provision.
The provision deems the Karta guilty for offences committed by an HUF unless he proves absence of knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence; members are separately liable if the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, and the Act clarifies that such member liability applies irrespective of both the Karta's deemed guilt and his due-diligence defence.

Corporate vicarious liability tightened: personal liability now operates notwithstanding due diligence where consent, connivance or neglect is shown.
Section 487 creates both a deeming rule treating companies and those in charge as guilty for corporate tax offences and a separate personal-liability route making directors, managers, secretaries, officers, partners and controlling members individually culpable where an offence is committed with their consent, connivance or attributable to their neglect; a statutory defence allows persons deemed guilty to avoid liability by proving lack of knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence, but the enacted text makes the personal-liability route operate irrespective of the deeming rule and the due diligence defence.

Abetment of false return: two-tier custodial penalties and fine where tax impact determines higher or lower sentencing.
Abetment of false return criminalises abetting or inducing another to make a false tax-related account, statement or declaration where the abettor knows it is false or does not believe it to be true, and prescribes a two tier sentencing regime based on the monetary magnitude of tax, penalty or interest evaded or wilfully attempted to be evaded; textual differences between the Bill and the enacted section are limited to phrasing around liability to fine and an editorial sentence, with no observable change to imprisonment ranges or threshold.

Falsification of books: criminalises willful false entries to enable another's tax evasion, allowing prosecution without proving actual evasion.
Section 483 proscribes falsification of books or other documents when a person wilfully makes or causes a false entry or statement, knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true, with intent to enable another to evade tax, interest or penalty; the offence carries rigorous imprisonment and fine, and it is not necessary to prove that the other person actually succeeded in evading tax.

Failure to furnish tax returns: criminal penalties with tiered custody and limited safe harbour for late filing.
Criminal liability is imposed for wilful failure to furnish a required return of income, with a two-tiered custodial and fine regime linked to the amount of tax evaded. A limited bar to prosecution exists where the return is subsequently furnished within the procedural time references or, for non-companies, where the residual tax shortfall after qualifying payments falls below a de minimis threshold. The scope of the safe harbour depends on the timing rules in the cross referenced procedural subsection.

Wilful attempt to evade tax: criminalises deliberate falsification and omissions, with tiered imprisonment and fines.
Section 478 criminalises a wilful attempt to evade tax and wilful under reporting by prescribing tiered rigorous imprisonment and fines, and it lists illustrative acts-false entries, omissions, possession of falsified books and conduct enabling evasion. The Act relocates and rephrases fine and penalty preservation language into a standalone non prejudice clause and tightens causation wording in an illustrative sub clause. Definitions of key terms and procedural or evidentiary standards are not provided in the text.

Failure to remit tax collected at source criminalised, exposing collectors to imprisonment and fine; exception for timely remittance.
Failure to remit to Government the tax collected at source is a penal offence punishable by imprisonment and fine, targeting persons who collect tax at source and imposing personal liability for payment to Government credit. A narrow temporal exception excludes application where payment has been made on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant statement, and the provision contains no mitigating grounds, mens rea gradation, or procedural compounding mechanisms.

Failure to remit withheld tax attracts criminal liability including imprisonment and fine; safe harbour if credited before filing deadline.
Failure to remit taxes deducted under Chapter XIX-B or required by specified Notes to the Table in section 393 constitutes a criminal offence punishable by rigorous imprisonment and fine; the offence applies where a person fails to pay amounts to the credit of the Central Government, subject to a temporal safe harbour if payment is made or credited on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant statement.

Fraudulent disposition of property to frustrate tax execution now criminalised, tied specifically to a certificate drawn under section 413.
The offence criminalises anyone who fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers any property or interest therein with intent to prevent such property or interest from being taken in execution of a certificate drawn u/s 413; punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to two years and a fine. The enacted text replaces the Bill's broader "as prescribed" formulation with a direct reference to section 413, clarifying the instrument whose execution the offence seeks to frustrate. The clause contains no exceptions, definitions of "fraudulently," or evidentiary rules.

Reasonable cause defence prevents penalties when a taxpayer proves it, expanding protection in the enacted provision.
Section 470 bars imposition of penalties under the listed provisions where a person or assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure; it frames the exception as prevailing irrespective of anything in those provisions and places the burden of proof on the person, while not defining "reasonable cause" or prescribing standards, procedures, or timing for such proof.

Discretionary penalty waiver: voluntary pre-detection disclosure and cooperation enable administrative leniency, subject to prior approval thresholds and safeguards.
Section 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where there is voluntary, pre detection disclosure, good faith cooperation and payment or satisfactory arrangements for tax and interest; sub section (2) contains a deeming rule for "full and true disclosure." Prior approval from a specified senior authority is required where multi year income/disclosure crosses the statutory threshold or where aggregate penalties to be waived under the hardship route exceed the threshold; once discretionary relief is granted for a person no further relief is available for other tax years. Procedural safeguards and a twelve month disposal timeline apply.

Tax penalties for procedural non-compliance impose fixed and daily monetary sanctions and designate imposing authorities by statute.
Clause 465 distinguishes fixed penalties for discrete refusals or omissions from continuing daily penalties for delays or failures to furnish returns, statements, certificates or allow inspections, caps certain penalties by reference to deductible or collectible tax, allocates specified income tax officers to impose such penalties, and defines "income tax authority"; it cross references multiple substantive provisions and contains no express procedural safeguards, appeal route, or mitigation mechanism.

Penalty for non-furnishing by eligible investment funds may be imposed as a fixed sanction for late or missing reports.
The provision authorises the prescribed income tax authority to direct an eligible investment fund to pay a fixed penalty of five lakh rupees where the fund fails to furnish a required statement, information or document within the time prescribed under the referenced provision; the sanction is discretionary and the text contains no exceptions, mitigation procedures or notice stages in the extract provided.

Penalty for inaccurate financial statements made mandatory; reporting institutions face per-account liability and recovery rights from account-holders.
Section 455 imposes a fixed penalty on persons required to furnish statements under section 508(1) for inaccurate information, failure to correct within the period under section 508(8), or non-compliance with due diligence under section 508(9). It also imposes an additional per-account liability on reporting financial institutions where inaccuracies arise from false or inaccurate information furnished by account-holders, and entitles institutions to recover or retain amounts paid from those account-holders. The provision cross-references section 508 and does not set out adjudicatory or appeal procedures.

Penalty for failure to provide electronic payment facilities imposes strict daily liability and removes statutory exception to avoid sanction.
The provision imposes a continuing daily monetary penalty, to be levied by the Assessing Officer, for failure to provide facilities to accept payments through prescribed electronic modes; the Bill included a proviso allowing avoidance of the penalty on proof of good and sufficient reason, but the enacted text omits that proviso, leaving key definitions, evidentiary standards, and procedural modalities unspecified.

Penalty for failure to comply: Assessing Officer may impose monetary penalty equal to sums received unless recipient proves good reasons.
Section 451 authorises the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to the sum received by a person in contravention of the relevant statutory provision; the earlier Bill expressly allowed escape if the recipient proved "good and sufficient reasons," but the enacted text omits that proviso, leaving the ambit of any exception, standards for evaluation, and the character of assessing discretion unspecified.