Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 466 introduces thousand rupee penalties but omits mandatory hearing requirements unlike existing Section 272AA
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 466 introduces a penalty mechanism for non-compliance with section 254 provisions, allowing designated tax authorities to impose penalties up to one thousand rupees. This mirrors Section 272AA of the Income-tax Act 1961, which addresses non-compliance with section 133B survey provisions. Both provisions share similar penalty amounts, authorized officers, and deterrent objectives. However, Clause 466 notably omits the express procedural safeguard requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition, unlike Section 272AA which mandates this protection. This absence raises concerns about natural justice and procedural fairness in the new provision.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 465 mirrors existing penalty structure but removes explicit hearing requirement
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 465 largely mirrors Section 272A of the Income Tax Act 1961, imposing penalties for procedural non-compliance. Both provisions penalize failures to answer questions, sign statements, attend summons, or furnish required information. Clause 465 maintains the same penalty structure: Rs. 10,000 per default for specific failures and Rs. 500 per day for continuing defaults, with penalties capped at the tax amount involved. The new provision updates section references to align with the restructured Bill while retaining the same competent authorities for penalty imposition. However, unlike Section 272A, Clause 465 lacks an explicit provision requiring opportunity of hearing before penalty imposition, potentially raising procedural fairness concerns.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 464 imposes penalties up to Rs 1 lakh on tax-exempt entities for non-compliance
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 464 introduces penalties for tax-exempt entities failing to furnish required statements and certificates, succeeding Section 271K of the 1961 Act. The provision targets research associations, universities, colleges, and certain funds that enjoy tax benefits. Penalties range from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, with discretionary authority vested in Assessing Officers. The clause maintains the same penalty structure as its predecessor but updates cross-references to align with the new Bill's sections. This reflects continued legislative intent to ensure compliance and transparency among tax-exempt entities through deterrent penalties.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 463 imposes Rs 10,000 penalty on professionals for incorrect tax reports
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 463 replaces Section 271J of the Income-tax Act 1961, imposing penalties on accountants, merchant bankers, and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in reports or certificates. Both provisions impose a fixed penalty of Rs. 10,000 per instance without requiring proof of intent, adopting a strict liability approach. Key differences include updated definitions for registered valuers aligning with current regulatory frameworks, while the definition of accountant remains unclear in the new clause. The provision aims to enhance professional accountability and maintain integrity in tax administration by deterring malpractices through direct consequences on professionals rather than solely on taxpayers.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 462 imposes one lakh rupee penalty for inaccurate information under section 397
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 462 introduces penalties for failing to furnish or providing inaccurate information under section 397(3)(d), imposing a fixed penalty of one lakh rupees. This provision mirrors Section 271I of the Income-tax Act 1961, which addresses similar compliance failures regarding payments to non-residents under section 195(6). Both provisions grant discretionary power to Assessing Officers to impose penalties without express reasonable cause defenses. The legislation aims to enhance transparency in cross-border transactions and deter tax evasion through strict liability penalties, though the rigid structure may create interpretative challenges regarding inadvertent errors and proportionality in enforcement.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 461 sets penalties Rs 10,000-1,00,000 for incorrect TDS/TCS statements with one-month relief period
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 461 establishes penalties for failing to file prescribed statements or providing incorrect information, mirroring Section 271H of the 1961 Act. Penalties range from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 at the Assessing Officer's discretion. Relief is available if tax, fees, and interest are paid and statements filed within one month of the due date. The provision maintains similar penalty quantum and discretionary relief mechanisms as existing law but references different sections for reporting obligations. The one-month grace period reflects stricter compliance expectations compared to the previous one-year relief period, emphasizing timely and accurate TDS/TCS statement filing.

Non-resident entity with liaison office faces identical penalty structures under Section 271GC and Clause 460 for reporting failures
A non-resident entity with a liaison office faces enforcement of reporting obligations under new tax legislation. The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 460 and the Income Tax Act 1961's Section 271GC impose identical penalty structures for failing to submit required statements within prescribed periods. Penalties include one thousand rupees daily for failures up to three months, or one lakh rupees for longer defaults. Both provisions grant discretionary authority to Assessing Officers and maintain similar enforcement mechanisms, with the primary difference being reference to different parent sections governing statement submission requirements.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 459 sets daily penalties up to INR 500,000 for multinational reporting non-compliance
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 459 establishes penalties for non-compliance with reporting requirements under section 511, targeting multinational enterprises and other reporting entities. The provision imposes daily penalties of INR 5,000 (up to one month) and INR 15,000 (beyond one month) for failure to furnish required reports. Additional penalties include INR 5,000 daily for failing to produce requested information, INR 50,000 daily for continued default after penalty orders, and INR 500,000 for furnishing inaccurate information. Clause 459 is substantially identical to existing Section 271GB of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining the same penalty structure and enforcement mechanisms while updating cross-references to align with the new legislative framework.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 458 sets 2% penalty for non-disclosure of indirect transfers
Clause 458 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 imposes penalties on Indian concerns that fail to furnish required information or documents under Section 506. The penalty is 2% of transaction value for transfers involving management or control rights, or five lakh rupees in other cases. This provision mirrors Section 271GA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining identical penalty structures and enforcement mechanisms. The clause aims to ensure compliance with disclosure requirements for indirect transfers and cross-border transactions, serving as a deterrent against non-compliance while supporting transparency in significant corporate transactions.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 457 maintains 2% penalty for transfer pricing documentation failures under Section 171(2)
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 457 imposes a penalty of 2% of transaction value for each failure to furnish required transfer pricing documentation under Section 171(2) for international or specified domestic transactions. This provision directly mirrors Section 271G of the Income-tax Act 1961, maintaining identical penalty quantum, scope, and authorized officers (Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer, Commissioner Appeals). Both provisions aim to enforce transfer pricing compliance and transparency. Key differences include updated cross-references and potential changes in procedural safeguards, particularly regarding reasonable cause defenses. The clause represents policy continuity in strengthening transfer pricing enforcement mechanisms.

Income Tax Bill 2025 Clause 456 imposes five lakh rupee penalty on investment funds for non-compliance with reporting requirements
The Income Tax Bill 2025's Clause 456 establishes penalty provisions for eligible investment funds failing to furnish required statements, information, or documents within prescribed timeframes. This clause mirrors Section 271FAB of the Income Tax Act 1961, maintaining a fixed penalty of five lakh rupees imposed at the discretion of prescribed tax authorities. The provision aims to ensure compliance with reporting obligations under investment fund taxation provisions, enhancing transparency and regulatory oversight. Both provisions serve as deterrents against non-compliance, though concerns exist regarding the fixed penalty structure's proportionality and the discretionary nature of enforcement without explicit guidelines.

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.