I-T dept working to give shape to rules, procedures under new Income Tax Bill: CBDT chief
Speaking at the 166th Income Tax Day event here, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Chief Ravi Agarwal also said the department is following the principle of 'enforcement with empathy', wherein it is enabling taxpayers to review and voluntarily update their finances.
Agarwal said "work is already underway to give shape to its rules, forms, and procedures, a critical next step... These will define how the law functions and practice. And I am confident that just like the bill, these too would reflect our shared commitment to clarity, simplicity, and taxpayer convenience". The new Income Tax Bill, 2025, was introduced in Parliament on February 13, 2025, and was referred to a parliamentary panel. The panel was submitted its report to Parliament on July 21 suggesting some changes to the I-T bill. Agarwal said the Income Tax department will continue to play its role in making India Viksit Bharat by collecting fair taxes, fostering voluntary compliance, and ensuring that are systems are worthy of trust citizens that put in place.
Agarwal said the department has been using data analytics for voluntary compliance. "Our 'Nudge campaign', which is a short form for non-intrusive usage of data to guide and enable taxpayers, today uses behavioural insights and transactional level data to detect discrepancies.
"Be it disclosed income, incorrect deductions, or high risk claims. Rather than launching compliance measures at once, we are now enabling taxpayers to review and voluntarily update their filings. This is enforcement with empathy and it reflects department's evolving mindset to trust persons," Agarwal added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Neo raises ₹750 crore in first close of secondaries fund, targets ₹2,000 crore
Neo Asset Management has announced the first close of its new private equity vehicle, the Neo Secondaries Fund (NSF), raising approximately ₹ 750 crore towards a target corpus of ₹ 2,000 crore, according to a press release. The Sebi-registered Category II Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) is focused on acquiring secondary stakes in unlisted Indian companies that have strong financials and clear exit visibility within 2–4 years. Led by Nitin Agarwal, a veteran in secondaries and private equity, NSF is designed to provide liquidity to existing investors and faster returns to new entrants, targeting profitable, late-stage companies in high-growth sectors such as consumer, technology, and AI/analytics. With three deals already closed and more in the pipeline, the fund reflects the rising appetite for secondary transactions in India's evolving private markets. Neo Asset Management, part of the Neo Group, currently manages over ₹ 13,500 crore in AUM across private equity, credit, and infrastructure, according to a company release. The firm is the alternative asset management arm of Neo Group, an integrated Indian wealth and alternatives platform backed by Peak XV Partners, MUFG Bank, and Euclidean Capital. Based in Mumbai, Neo caters to institutional clients, family offices, ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNIs), and pension and insurance funds, offering capital solutions across private credit, real assets, and secondary private equity strategies. As of mid-2025, the group claims to manage ₹ 40,000 crore across its wealth and asset management platforms, including ₹ 11,500 crore within its asset management arm and ₹ 2,000 crore in net equity. Despite its rapid scale-up, Neo has adopted a capital-efficient approach, with all funds from its ₹ 400 crore ($48 million) Series B round, raised in 2024 from MUFG Bank and Euclidean Capital, still unspent, according to media reports. The firm has also launched multiple Sebi-registered Category II AIFs, including the NSCOF-II, a private credit fund that lends to Ebitda-positive companies with hard asset backing, tailored to meet growing liquidity and structured financing demand in India's private markets. Since 2023, Neo Asset Management has scaled rapidly through a series of targeted AIF launches and fundraises. It began with a $35 million ( ₹ 300 crore) Series A in October 2023 from Peak XV Partners, followed by a ₹ 32 crore private placement in July 2024. In August 2024, it raised ₹ 400 crore ($48 million) in Series B, led by MUFG Bank and Euclidean Capital. On the fund side, Neo raised ₹ 2,575 crore for its inaugural Special Credit Opportunities Fund (NSCOF-I) by mid-2024, which was fully deployed across 23 structured credit deals. In April 2025, it launched NSCOF-II with a ₹ 2,000 crore first close, targeting a ₹ 5,000 crore total corpus, marking its transition from fundraising to full-scale deployment in India's maturing private markets.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's tariffs prove India right, expose lie of trade threat used to broker Indo-Pak peace
Trump's imposition of tariffs on India directly contradicts his own claim of brokering peace through trade threats read more US President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports undercuts his own claim that India paused its military offensive against Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in exchange for favourable trade terms. What was once portrayed by Trump as a successful example of coercive diplomacy has now unravelled into contradiction, especially as India continues to deny any link between trade negotiations and the May 10 ceasefire. This inconsistency exposes the fragility of Trump's narrative and vindicates India's position that its military decisions were guided solely by national security imperatives — not foreign pressure. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Operation Sindoor and the Trump narrative In the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 civilian lives, India launched Operation Sindoor — a swift and forceful retaliation targeting nine terror camps deep inside Pakistani territory. The operation, according to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was executed with 'decisive and calibrated precision,' striking Pakistan's airbases and infrastructure so severely that, in Modi's words, 'Pakistan's air bases are still in ICU.' Amid these developments, Trump repeatedly claimed he had convinced India to halt the operation by threatening to cut off trade unless hostilities stopped. In posts on Truth Social, he suggested he had extracted concessions by leveraging the threat of removing India from US trading preferences — a move, he asserted, which pushed India to the negotiating table and led to the May 10 ceasefire. India's rebuttal: No foreign hand in ceasefire Trump's claims were swiftly and repeatedly rejected by India. Prime Minister Modi, speaking in Parliament, flatly denied that any foreign leader — Trump included — had asked India to stop its military operations. 'No leader of any country asked India to stop Operation Sindoor,' PM Modi said, reinforcing India's autonomy in defence matters and insisting that the operation was halted only after achieving its objectives. Supporting this stance, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar disclosed in both Houses of Parliament that no communication took place between Trump and Modi during the period in question. Further, the Ministry of External Affairs emphasised that the ceasefire decision came solely from direct contacts between the Indian and Pakistani DGMOs, with no reference to trade or US mediation. Trump's tariff outburst Trump's imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, announced on Wednesday, has inadvertently undercut his own boastful claims. The announcement came ironically on the same day Parliament wrapped up its debate on Operation Sindoor. This timing added a layer of dramatic irony, spotlighting the disconnect between Trump's claims and his actions. US court affidavit Compounding the confusion was a US court affidavit, submitted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on May 23, in which the Trump administration insisted that the ceasefire was achieved after Trump offered India and Pakistan favourable trading access to avert full-scale war. The affidavit, part of a legal defence of Trump's tariff powers, argued that limiting presidential authority could undermine critical diplomatic tools — like the alleged use of trade threats in the India-Pakistan case. This claim, now echoed in court documents, puts the Trump administration at odds with the Indian government's repeated rebuttals. As the Court of International Trade found Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy global tariffs unlawful and arbitrary, the political logic of his India-Pakistan peace narrative also faces collapse. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's firm stand on sovereignty India's response has been clear and unwavering. Prime Minister Modi said that the decision to stop Operation Sindoor was made after objectives were met, not under foreign coercion. He further described how Pakistan pleaded for a ceasefire, with the DGMO reportedly telling India to please stop the attack as they can't take it anymore. This messaging stresses upon India's sovereignty and its resistance to any form of external mediation in its dealings with Pakistan. The Modi government's consistent rejection of Trump's claim reveals a broader strategic posture that India will not allow its national security or geopolitical decisions to be mischaracterised by any power, however influential. Tariffs as a tool of political theatre The sequence of events shows how Trump's tariff policy was not rooted in sound economic or diplomatic logic but rather in performative geopolitics. His 'Liberation Day' narrative introducing sweeping tariffs to strong-arm other nations appears designed more for domestic political gain than real diplomatic leverage. In India's case, it boomeranged. By imposing punishing tariffs despite claiming a deal was struck, Trump effectively disproved his own narrative. The contradiction is glaring: if India indeed complied under pressure, where is the 'good deal' that Trump promised? Instead, India received punitive trade actions, not rewards. Vindication for India Trump's tariff move against India has inadvertently vindicated New Delhi's position that the decision to cease hostilities with Pakistan was made independently, with no linkage to trade concessions. His conflicting narratives boasting about coercion on one hand and penalising India on the other reveal the transactional and often contradictory nature of his diplomacy. By refusing to be drawn into this narrative, India has preserved both its strategic autonomy and moral authority. As Prime Minister Modi and other ministers have reiterated, national interest and sovereignty and not foreign threats dictate India's military decisions.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court to Telangana Speaker: decide on disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to Congress within 3 months
The Supreme Court Thursday asked the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to decide petitions seeking the disqualification of 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had defected to the ruling Congress expeditiously and not later than three months. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih was hearing petitions filed by BRS leaders who sought a directive to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar for timely action on disqualification proceedings. The BRS had initially moved the Telangana High Court, where a single-judge bench gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions. On appeal by the Speaker, a division bench on November 22, 2024, set aside the single-judge order and asked the Speaker to decide the petitions in a reasonable time. Setting aside the Telangana High Court division bench's order, the Supreme Court said the very objective of the anti-defection law was to curb the evil of political defections, and the only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker was to avoid delay and to ensure expeditious decision on disqualification petitions. The bench noted that the Speaker, in his capacity as Tribunal, in deciding disqualification petitions, does not enjoy any 'constitutional immunity'. It asked the Telangana Speaker not to allow the MLAs, against whom disqualification petitions have been filed, to protract the proceedings. The court said an adverse inference can be drawn against any MLA who attempts a delaying tactic. The ruling pointed out that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the petitions seeking disqualification for almost seven months and said, 'If we do not issue any directions, it will amount to allowing the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of 'operation successful, patient dead'.' Noting the recurring instances of Speakers allegedly sitting on disqualification proceedings, the Supreme Court also asked the Parliament to review the present mechanism contemplated under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution. 'Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman (with) the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that,' the Supreme Court said. The BRS filed the disqualification petitions before the Telangana Assembly Speaker in March-April 2024. This was after Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkat Rao, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, who were originally elected on a BRS ticket in the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections, switched to the Congress.
