Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Protecting SEZ Developers' Tax Incentives : Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 139 Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in development of Special Economic Zone.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to provide deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in the development of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). This provision is designed to ensure continuity of tax incentives previously available u/s 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which stood repealed with the introduction of the new tax code. The clause essentially acts as a transitional mechanism, preserving the rights of eligible developers to claim deductions that would have been available to them had section 80IAB remained in force. Section 80IAB was a critical fiscal incentive for SEZ developers, aligning with India's economic policy to encourage infrastructure development and export-oriented growth. The section provided a 100% deduction of profits and gains derived from the business of developing SEZs for a period of ten consecutive years, subject to certain conditions and timelines. With the legislative shift towards a new tax regime, Clause 139 becomes significant in safeguarding the legitimate expectations and investments of SEZ developers who commenced their projects under the earlier framework. This commentary analyzes Clause 139 in detail, elucidates its objectives, dissects its operative mechanics, and compares it with the erstwhile section 80IAB. The analysis also explores practical implications, interpretative challenges, and policy considerations relevant to stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      Clause 139 is crafted with the primary objective of ensuring that developers who initiated SEZ projects under the incentive regime of section 80IAB are not unfairly prejudiced by the repeal of the old Act. The legislative intent is twofold:

      1. Transitional Protection: To provide a seamless transition for developers who invested in SEZs relying on the fiscal incentives promised by the state, thereby upholding the principle of legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness in state action.
      2. Continuity of Incentives: To allow eligible developers to continue availing deductions for the remaining eligible period, calculated as per the provisions of section 80IAB, as if the old Act had not been repealed.

      The policy rationale is rooted in the need to maintain investor confidence, prevent disruption of ongoing projects, and avoid retrospective denial of incentives that could have adverse economic and legal repercussions.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Structure and Scope of Clause 139

      Clause 139 is composed of several key elements:

      • Eligibility: The assessee must be a "Developer" whose gross total income includes profits and gains derived from the business of developing a SEZ, notified on or after April 1, 2005, under the SEZ Act, 2005.
      • Reference to Section 80IAB: The clause explicitly refers to section 80IAB, stipulating that the deduction is available only if the assessee would have been eligible under that section had the old Act not been repealed.
      • Quantum and Period of Deduction: The amount and period of deduction must be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 80IAB.
      • Conditionality: The deduction is allowed only for the tax years that would have been eligible u/s 80IAB, thereby preventing any extension or expansion of the benefit beyond what was previously permissible.

      2. Key Provisions and Their Interpretation

      1. Eligibility Criteria:
        • The clause is confined to "Developers" as defined under the SEZ Act, 2005, and applies only to SEZs notified on or after April 1, 2005. This mirrors the scope of section 80IAB and excludes any new SEZs notified after the cut-off date stipulated in the old law.
        • The business must be that of "developing" a SEZ, which has been interpreted in previous jurisprudence to include activities such as land acquisition, infrastructure development, and provision of facilities for units within the SEZ.
      2. Reference to Repealed Law:
        • The clause operates as a "legal fiction," deeming the relevant provisions of section 80IAB to continue for the limited purpose of calculating the deduction. This approach is consistent with established principles of transitional legislation, as seen in various Supreme Court rulings on savings and repeal clauses.
        • The eligibility is tested "as if the said Act had not been repealed," ensuring that only those who would have qualified under the old regime are covered.
      3. Calculation of Deduction:
        • The quantum of deduction is to be "calculated as per the provisions of section 80IAB," i.e., 100% of profits and gains derived from the eligible business for ten consecutive years, within a span of fifteen years from the date of notification of the SEZ.
        • This ensures that the computation mechanism, including all conditions and limitations u/s 80IAB (such as the option to choose any ten consecutive years and the application of sub-sections of section 80-IA), continues to apply.
      4. Temporal Limitation:
        • The deduction is available only for such tax years as would have been allowed u/s 80IAB, preventing any extension of the benefit due to the transition to the new Act.
        • This is particularly significant for developers who have already commenced availing the deduction and have unexpired years remaining within the original ten-year window.

      3. Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Interpretation of "Developer": While the SEZ Act provides a definition, disputes may arise regarding the eligibility of entities involved in ancillary activities or those who have transferred development rights.
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: The clause's reference to section 80IAB incorporates by implication the cross-references to section 80-IA, including anti-abuse provisions, which may lead to interpretational challenges in the new regime.
      • Procedural Aspects: The mechanism for claiming deduction, documentation, and compliance requirements are not explicitly stated and may need to be clarified through subordinate legislation or CBDT circulars.
      • Sunset Clauses: The clause does not extend or revive the benefit for developers commencing SEZs after April 1, 2017, in line with the sunset provision introduced by the Finance Act, 2016 in section 80IAB.

      Practical Implications

      1. Impact on Developers

      Clause 139 provides significant relief to developers who have made substantial investments in SEZ infrastructure based on the promise of tax incentives. It ensures:

      • Certainty and predictability in fiscal planning for ongoing projects.
      • Protection against abrupt withdrawal of incentives, which could otherwise lead to stranded investments and potential litigation.
      • Continuity of cash flows for the remaining eligible period, aiding project viability and debt servicing.

      2. Impact on Tax Administration

      Tax authorities are required to apply the provisions of the repealed section 80IAB for eligible cases, necessitating:

      • Maintenance of dual compliance regimes for a transitional period.
      • Training and capacity building to interpret and administer the legacy provisions in the context of the new Act.
      • Potential increase in scrutiny and litigation over eligibility, computation, and procedural compliance.

      3. Impact on Policy and Investment Climate

      By honoring past commitments, the provision reinforces India's credibility as an investment destination, particularly for infrastructure and export-oriented sectors. It also signals a balanced approach to tax reform, accommodating legitimate expectations while transitioning to a modernized tax regime.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 139 vs. Section 80IAB

      1. Structural Parity

      Both Clause 139 and section 80IAB are structurally aligned in their core purpose: providing a 100% deduction of profits and gains derived from the business of developing SEZs, subject to specific eligibility and temporal conditions.

      2. Key Similarities

      • Eligible Assessee: Both apply to "Developers" as defined under the SEZ Act, 2005.
      • Nature of Income: Deduction is available only in respect of profits and gains derived from the business of developing an SEZ.
      • Quantum of Deduction: 100% of eligible profits for ten consecutive years within a fifteen-year window.
      • Temporal Limitation: Both provisions exclude SEZs where development commenced after April 1, 2017, pursuant to the sunset clause introduced by the Finance Act, 2016.
      • Cross-Reference to Section 80-IA: The machinery provisions for computation, anti-abuse, and procedural requirements are incorporated by reference to section 80-IA.

      3. Key Differences

      AspectSection 80IAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Legal StatusSubstantive law in force until repealTransitional/savings provision referencing repealed law
      ScopeApplies to all eligible developers during its currencyApplies only to those eligible as of repeal, for unexpired period
      Temporal ApplicationOpen to new SEZs notified up to April 1, 2017Closed to new SEZs; operates only for ongoing eligible cases
      Procedural ClarityDetailed mechanism, including options for period selection, transfer of operation, etc.Relies entirely on provisions of section 80IAB; procedural aspects to be clarified
      Legislative IntentPromotion of SEZ development as ongoing policyProtection of vested rights; no new incentive policy

      4. Unique Features and Potential Conflicts

      • Transitional Nature: Clause 139 is not a standalone incentive but a savings provision. It does not create new rights but preserves existing ones, preventing retrospective deprivation.
      • Potential Conflicts: Ambiguities may arise in the interpretation of procedural requirements, particularly regarding the application of anti-abuse provisions and documentation standards in the context of the new Act.
      • Comparative Jurisdictions: Similar transitional mechanisms have been employed in other tax jurisdictions to protect pre-existing incentives during tax reforms, underscoring the importance of legal certainty and investor confidence.

      Conclusion

      Clause 139 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is a critical transitional provision that ensures continuity of tax incentives for SEZ developers who commenced their projects under the erstwhile section 80IAB. By referencing the repealed law, it upholds the principles of legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness, providing much-needed certainty for ongoing investments. The clause is meticulously aligned with the substantive provisions of section 80IAB, ensuring that the quantum, period, and conditions for deduction remain unchanged. However, it is strictly limited to cases where eligibility existed prior to the repeal, precluding any expansion of the benefit to new projects. While the provision addresses the core concern of transitional justice, certain ambiguities regarding procedural compliance and interpretational overlaps may necessitate further clarification through subordinate legislation or administrative guidance. The approach adopted in Clause 139 is consistent with global best practices in tax reform, balancing the imperatives of policy evolution with the need to honor past commitments.


      Full Text:

      Clause 139 Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in development of Special Economic Zone.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax