Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 455 imposes 50,000 penalties for inaccurate financial reporting and compliance failures
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 455 introduces penalties for inaccurate financial reporting, largely mirroring Section 271FAA of the Income Tax Act 1961. The provision imposes a 50,000 penalty on entities providing inaccurate statements or failing due diligence requirements under Section 508. Financial institutions face additional 5,000 penalties per inaccurate reportable account when errors stem from account holder misrepresentations. Institutions can recover these penalties from responsible account holders through direct recovery or fund retention. The clause aims to ensure accurate financial reporting, prevent tax evasion, and facilitate international information exchange while maintaining accountability mechanisms that allocate liability to the party at fault.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 454 maintains Rs. 500-1,000 daily penalties for missing financial transaction statements
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 454 replaces Section 271FA of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining identical penalty structures for failing to furnish financial transaction statements. Both provisions impose Rs. 500 daily penalties for initial non-compliance and Rs. 1,000 daily penalties after formal notice. The clause applies to entities required to report under Section 508(1), including banks and financial institutions. While substantively unchanged, the new provision updates section references and modernizes language. A potential concern is the absence of explicit "reasonable cause" exemption language present in the current law, which may require clarification to ensure taxpayer protections remain intact.

Section 188 loan repayment violations face penalties equal to amount repaid under new Clause 453
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 453 introduces penalties for non-compliance with loan repayment provisions under section 188, mirroring section 271E of the Income-tax Act 1961. The penalty equals the amount repaid in violation of prescribed modes, targeting cash transactions above specified thresholds to prevent tax evasion and ensure transparency. Key changes include transferring penalty-imposing authority from Joint Commissioner to Assessing Officer and potential removal of explicit "reasonable cause" defense. The provision maintains broad coverage of loans, deposits, and specified advances, continuing the legislative framework designed to regulate high-value financial transactions and combat unaccounted income circulation.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 452 imposes 5000 rupee daily penalty for non-compliance with electronic payment requirements
Clause 452 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a penalty regime for businesses failing to provide prescribed electronic payment facilities as required under section 187. The provision imposes a penalty of 5,000 rupees per day of non-compliance, with exceptions for good and sufficient reasons. This clause succeeds Section 271DB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining identical penalty amounts and objectives while streamlining authority from Joint Commissioner to Assessing Officer. The legislation aims to promote digital payments, enhance tax compliance, and modernize the financial ecosystem by mandating electronic payment acceptance for businesses above specified turnover thresholds.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 451 introduces penalties equal to transaction amount for violating monetary restrictions
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 451 introduces penalties for violating section 186's monetary transaction restrictions. The Assessing Officer may impose penalties equal to the sum received in contravention, unless the person proves good and sufficient reasons for the violation. This provision mirrors Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act 1961, which penalizes contraventions of section 269ST. Both provisions aim to deter large cash transactions and promote financial transparency. Key differences include Clause 451's discretionary language versus Section 271DA's mandatory tone, and the shift of penalty authority from Joint Commissioner to Assessing Officer. The proportional penalty structure and reasonable cause exception balance deterrence with fairness in enforcement.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 450 imposes penalties equal to loan amount for violating section 185 deposit acceptance rules
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 450 introduces penalties for violating section 185 regarding loan and deposit acceptance, succeeding Section 271D of the Income-tax Act 1961. The penalty equals the amount of loan, deposit, or specified sum taken in contravention of prescribed conditions. Key changes include transferring penalty authority from Joint Commissioner to Assessing Officer and referencing section 185 instead of section 269SS. The provision maintains identical quantum and scope, continuing the policy objective of deterring cash transactions and promoting banking channel usage to prevent tax evasion and unaccounted money circulation.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 449 gives discretionary penalty powers to Assessing Officer for uncollected tax at source
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 449 and the Income Tax Act 1961's Section 271CA both impose penalties for failure to collect tax at source. Both provisions mandate a penalty equal to the uncollected tax amount. Key differences include: Clause 449 uses "may impose" suggesting discretion while Section 271CA states "shall be liable" indicating mandatory penalty; Clause 449 designates the Assessing Officer as penalty authority from inception, whereas Section 271CA was amended in 2025 to shift this power from Joint Commissioner to Assessing Officer; the new provision references Chapter XIX-B while the old refers to Chapter XVII-BB. Both aim to ensure compliance with tax collection at source requirements through proportional penalties.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 448 introduces penalties for TDS non-compliance replacing Section 271C with broader enforcement
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 448 proposes penalties for TDS non-compliance, replacing Section 271C of the Income-tax Act 1961. The clause penalizes failure to deduct tax under Chapter XIX-B or pay/ensure payment per specific notes in section 393. Penalty equals the tax amount not deducted/paid, imposable by the Assessing Officer. Unlike Section 271C which lists specific sections, Clause 448 references broader chapters and table notes. A key concern is the absence of explicit "reasonable cause" defense, potentially creating harsher outcomes. The provision aims to modernize TDS enforcement while maintaining deterrent effect through proportional penalties.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 447 imposes one lakh rupee penalty for missing accountant's report under section 172
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 447 introduces a penalty provision for failure to furnish an accountant's report under section 172, imposing a fixed penalty of one lakh rupees. This provision mirrors the existing Section 271BA of the Income-tax Act 1961, which penalizes non-submission of accountant's reports under section 92E for transfer pricing matters. Both provisions grant discretionary authority to Assessing Officers to impose penalties and use identical penalty amounts. The new clause aims to ensure compliance with statutory reporting requirements, promote transparency, and deter non-compliance through monetary penalties, continuing the legislative trend toward robust compliance frameworks in complex tax matters.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 446 sets penalties for missing audit requirements under Section 63
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 446 imposes penalties for failure to get accounts audited or furnish audit reports as required under section 63. The penalty is the lesser of 0.5% of total sales, turnover, or gross receipts, or Rs. 1,50,000. This provision largely mirrors existing Section 271B of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining the same penalty structure and triggers. Key differences include updated terminology using "tax year" instead of "previous year" and cross-reference to section 63 rather than section 44AB. The provision grants Assessing Officers discretionary authority to impose penalties, though it lacks explicit "reasonable cause" exceptions, potentially indicating stricter enforcement under the modernized framework.

Non-profit organizations face 100-200% penalties under Clause 445 for diverting income to related persons
Clause 445 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 imposes penalties on registered non-profit organizations that divert income for the benefit of related persons, similar to Section 271AAE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision establishes a two-tier penalty structure: 100% of the diverted amount for first violations and 200% for subsequent violations. It covers both direct and indirect benefits to related persons as defined in section 355(i). The penalty is triggered when specified income becomes chargeable to tax under section 337. This strict liability provision aims to prevent misuse of tax exemptions and ensure charitable funds serve their intended purposes, reflecting the legislature's commitment to robust oversight of the non-profit sector.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 444 maintains same penalties as Section 271AAD for false accounting entries
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 444 and the existing Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act 1961 both penalize false accounting entries and omissions made to evade tax liability. Both provisions impose penalties equal to the aggregate amount of false or omitted entries and extend liability to third parties who cause such entries. The provisions define false entries to include forged documents, invoices without actual supply/receipt, and invoices involving non-existent persons. Clause 444 represents legislative continuity with minimal changes from Section 271AAD, maintaining the same penalty structure and authority distribution among tax officers while consolidating the policy framework for the new tax regime.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 443 imposes 10% penalty on undisclosed income under sections 102-106
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 443 imposes a 10% penalty on tax payable for undisclosed income under sections 102-106, including unexplained cash credits, investments, and expenditures. This provision mirrors Section 271AAC of the 1961 Act but updates cross-references and terminology. The penalty applies when authorities determine such income exists, with exceptions for voluntary disclosure in returns with timely tax payment. The clause prevents double penalties and incorporates procedural safeguards. Both provisions aim to deter tax evasion while encouraging compliance through voluntary disclosure mechanisms.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 442 imposes 2% penalty on transaction value for transfer pricing documentation failures
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 442 establishes penalties for documentation failures in international and specified domestic transactions, mirroring Section 271AA of the Income-tax Act 1961. The provision imposes a 2% penalty on transaction value for failing to maintain required documentation, failing to report transactions, or furnishing incorrect information. Additionally, a flat penalty of five lakh rupees applies for non-furnishing of information. The clause maintains identical penalty structure and quantum as existing law, ensuring continuity in transfer pricing compliance enforcement while updating section references to align with the restructured legislation.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 441 sets twenty-five thousand rupee penalty for failing to maintain required books and documents
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 441 imposes a fixed penalty of twenty-five thousand rupees for failure to keep, maintain, or retain books of account and documents as required under section 62 or relevant rules. The provision empowers Assessing Officers, Joint Commissioners, or Commissioners to impose penalties. This largely mirrors Section 271A of the current Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining the same penalty amount and authorities. However, Clause 441 omits the "without prejudice" clause found in Section 271A, potentially creating interpretative issues regarding overlap with other penalty provisions. Both provisions operate on strict liability principles without reasonable cause exceptions.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 440 offers immunity from penalties and prosecution for compliant taxpayers
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 440 introduces an immunity mechanism allowing assessees to avoid penalties and prosecution by meeting specific conditions. An assessee can apply to the Assessing Officer within one month of receiving an assessment order if they have paid all tax and interest due and filed no appeal. The Assessing Officer must grant immunity after the appeal period expires, except in cases involving serious infractions under section 439(11). The application must be disposed of within three months with opportunity for hearing. If immunity is granted, no further appeal or revision against the assessment order is permitted. This clause largely mirrors Section 270AA of the current Income-tax Act 1961, with updated cross-references to new provisions, maintaining the policy of incentivizing voluntary compliance while preserving deterrent effects for egregious cases.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 439 maintains 50% penalty for under-reporting and 200% for misreporting income
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 439 largely mirrors Section 270A of the Income-tax Act 1961, establishing penalties for under-reporting and misreporting income. Both provisions impose 50% penalty for under-reporting and 200% for misreporting, using formula-based calculations to reduce arbitrariness. The clause defines seven scenarios constituting under-reporting, provides exceptions for bona fide explanations and voluntary disclosures, and distinguishes between inadvertent errors and deliberate falsification. Key differences include updated cross-references to new sections and minor variations in exclusions. The provision maintains procedural safeguards requiring written orders and prevents double penalization, continuing the objective, deterrent-focused approach while ensuring fairness in tax enforcement.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 189 defines banking terms for high-value property transactions to combat tax evasion
Clause 189 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces definitions for terms related to payment modes in high-value transactions, particularly immovable property transfers. The provision defines "banking company" as entities under Banking Regulation Act, 1949, "specified sum" as money receivable in property transfers regardless of completion, and "specified advance" as advance payments for property transactions. These definitions largely mirror Section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining continuity while potentially expanding regulatory scope. The clause aims to combat tax evasion by ensuring uniform interpretation of anti-evasion measures and facilitating restrictions on cash transactions in real estate dealings.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 188 prohibits cash loan repayments above twenty thousand rupees
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 188 regulates repayment modes for loans, deposits, and specified advances, succeeding Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961. It prohibits cash repayments above twenty thousand rupees by banking companies, cooperative banks, other companies, firms, and individuals. Permitted modes include account payee cheques, bank drafts, electronic clearing systems, and prescribed electronic modes. The provision uses aggregation mechanisms to prevent circumvention through transaction splitting. Exemptions apply to government entities, banking companies, and notified institutions. Agricultural credit societies receive enhanced thresholds of two lakh rupees. The clause aims to enhance transaction transparency, prevent tax evasion, and promote digital payments while maintaining structural similarity to existing provisions.