https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12485 The article contends the Supreme Court read words such as 'deducted', 'deposited', and 'retained' into statutory provisions governing deemed income and deductions, thereby conflating 'sums received' with employer payroll deductions credited to employee accounts. It argues the statutory text uses 'received' and 'credited' in defined ways, that 'actually paid' is limited in scope elsewhere, and that the Court failed to justify importing terms that change the legal characterization of employee contributions, warranting reconsideration. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:09:32 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12485 The article contends the Supreme Court read words such as 'deducted', 'deposited', and 'retained' into statutory provisions governing deemed income and deductions, thereby conflating 'sums received' with employer payroll deductions credited to employee accounts. It argues the statutory text uses 'received' and 'credited' in defined ways, that 'actually paid' is limited in scope elsewhere, and that the Court failed to justify importing terms that change the legal characterization of employee contributions, warranting reconsideration. Articles Income Tax Tue, 02 Apr 2024 08:09:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=12485