VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XXII › Section 482
Chapter XXIIwas s.277

Section 482 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 482 — False statement in verification, etc. Successor to s.277 of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 482 is in Chapter XXII — Offences and Prosecutions, which runs from section 473 to section 498.

← Section 481  ·  Section 483 →

What this section does

The section punishes a person who makes a statement in any verification under the Act or any rule made under it, or delivers an account or statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true.

Clauses (a), (b) and (c) — substituted for the earlier clauses (a) and (b) by Act No. 4 of 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026 — graduate the punishment by the amount of tax which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true. Where that exceeds fifty lakh rupees: simple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or fine, or both. Where it exceeds ten lakh rupees but does not exceed fifty lakh rupees: simple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or fine, or both. In any other case: fine.

The pre-substitution clauses provided rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months and up to seven years with fine where the tax exceeded twenty-five lakh rupees, and rigorous imprisonment of not less than three months and up to two years with fine in any other case; neither survives.

Why it is there

Every return, form and statement under the Act rests on a verification, and the system works only if that verification carries weight. The section attaches criminal consequences to a verification made without belief in its truth and scales them to what was at stake. The 2026 substitution changes the shape of the offence — simple imprisonment subject only to a maximum in place of rigorous imprisonment with mandatory minimums, fine alone available at every level, and a two-tier structure at ten and fifty lakh rupees in place of the single twenty-five lakh line.

Who it applies to

The figures, and what each one turns on

Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
WhatFigureThe condition on itWhere
Punishment where the tax that would have been evaded exceeds fifty lakh rupeesSimple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or fine, or bothMeasured by the tax which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as trueClause (a), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026
Punishment where that tax exceeds ten lakh but not fifty lakh rupeesSimple imprisonment for a term up to six months, or fine, or bothSame measureClause (b), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026
Punishment in any other caseFineWhere the tax that would have been evaded does not exceed ten lakh rupeesClause (c), as substituted by Act No. 4 of 2026 w.e.f. 1-4-2026

What this means in practice

The mental element is wider than knowledge — it is enough that the person believed the statement to be false, or did not believe it to be true, so a verification signed without any basis for believing it is within the section. The measure of seriousness is hypothetical: the tax which would have been evaded had the statement been accepted as true, not the tax finally found due. Under the substituted clauses there is no minimum term anywhere, imprisonment is simple rather than rigorous, and clauses (a) and (b) each allow imprisonment, or fine, or both.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

An individual signs a verification supporting a claim he does not believe to be true; had it been accepted, tax of Rs 70 lakh would have escaped. Clause (a) applies — simple imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both. Had the tax at stake been Rs 20 lakh, clause (b) would apply and the maximum term would fall to six months; below ten lakh rupees, clause (c) leaves only a fine.

Where you meet this section

In a criminal complaint filed before a court, usually after assessment or penalty proceedings have established the false claim. Every return and prescribed form carries a verification, and it is the signing of that verification, or the delivery of a false account or statement, that brings the section into play.

The words themselves

which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true
Section 482, Income-tax Act, 2025.
with simple imprisonment for a term up to two years, or with fine, or with both, where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds fifty lakh rupees
Section 482(a), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 482. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Explainers

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.