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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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

      Analyzing the Tax Treatment of Collective Entities under Clause 310 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 86 of Income-tax Act, 1961

      21 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 310 Share of member of association of persons or body of individuals in income of association or body.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory provisions that address the taxation of the share of income accruing to a member of an association of persons (AOP) or body of individuals (BOI) from such association or body. These provisions are central to the determination of tax liability in cases where individuals pool resources and carry on activities collectively, a common structure in India's business and investment landscape.

      The legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent double taxation and to ensure that income arising from collective entities is taxed appropriately, either at the entity level or at the member level, depending on the circumstances. The 2025 Bill seeks to update and potentially streamline these provisions, reflecting evolving policy considerations and perhaps addressing ambiguities or inefficiencies in the existing law.

      Objective and Purpose

      Both Clause 310 and Section 86 aim to allocate tax liability in respect of income arising from AOPs or BOIs in a manner that is equitable and avoids double taxation. The underlying policy is to ensure that income is taxed once-either in the hands of the AOP/BOI or in the hands of its members-but not both. The provisions also take into account situations where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a higher rate (such as the maximum marginal rate), in which case the members should not be taxed again on their respective shares.

      Historically, the Income-tax Act, 1961 has recognized the need for special treatment of AOPs and BOIs, which are not companies or registered societies, but are nevertheless recognized as separate taxable entities. The legislative history of Section 86, including multiple amendments, reflects ongoing efforts to balance the interests of the revenue with the need to avoid unfair double taxation of members.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Exemption of Member's Share from Tax

      Clause 310(1) provides that income-tax shall not be payable by an assessee who is a member of an AOP or BOI in respect of his share in the income of the AOP or BOI computed in the manner provided in section 309, except in cases falling under sub-section (2).

      This sub-section establishes the general rule that the share of income accruing to a member from an AOP/BOI is exempt from tax in the hands of the member if tax has already been levied at the entity level. The reference to computation u/s 309 ensures that the share is determined according to prescribed rules, maintaining consistency and fairness.

      Taxability When AOP/BOI Not Taxable

      Clause 310(2) carves out an exception: where no income-tax is chargeable on the total income of the AOP/BOI, the member's share (as computed) shall be chargeable to tax as part of his total income.

      This provision ensures that income does not escape taxation altogether. If, for any reason, the AOP/BOI is not liable to tax (for example, due to exemption or lack of taxable income), the member's share is brought to tax in the hands of the member, plugging a potential loophole.

      Specific Treatment Based on Tax Rate of AOP/BOI

      Clause 310(3) distinguishes between two situations:

      • (a) If the AOP/BOI is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate or any higher rate under any provision of the Act, the member's share shall not be included in his total income.
      • (b) In any other case, the member's share shall form part of his total income.

      Thus, where the entity is taxed at the highest possible rate, the member is relieved from further taxation on his share, reinforcing the principle of single taxation. In other cases (where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a lower rate), the member's share is included in his total income and taxed accordingly, ensuring that revenue leakage is minimized.

      Key Features and Legislative Technique

      Clause 310 is structured to provide clear rules for allocation of tax liability. The provision is methodical, first stating the general rule (exemption), then providing exceptions (when AOP/BOI is not taxed), and finally addressing special situations (taxation at maximum marginal rate).

      Notably, Clause 310 refers to computation u/s 309, which presumably sets out the method for determining the share of income of a member, analogous to section 67A in the 1961 Act.

      Detailed Analysis of Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Scope and Applicability

      Section 86 applies to a member of an AOP or BOI (other than a company, co-operative society, or society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or corresponding law). The exclusion of companies and registered societies is significant, as these are taxed under separate provisions.

      The section states that income-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of his share in the income of the association or body computed as per section 67A.

      Proviso (a): Exclusion from Total Income if AOP/BOI Taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate

      Where the AOP/BOI is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate or higher, the member's share is not to be included in his total income. This mirrors the policy in Clause 310(3)(a) and is designed to prevent double taxation.

      Proviso (b): Inclusion in Total Income in Other Cases

      In any other case, the member's share is included in his total income. This ensures that where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a concessional or lower rate, the member is not unjustly enriched by the lower entity-level tax and is taxed at personal rates.

      Second Proviso: Taxation When AOP/BOI Not Chargeable to Tax

      Where no income-tax is chargeable on the total income of the AOP/BOI, the member's share is chargeable to tax as part of his total income, and the main section does not apply. This provision is functionally identical to Clause 310(2), ensuring that income is not left untaxed.

      Interpretation and Judicial Guidance

      Section 86 has been the subject of judicial interpretation, with courts emphasizing its role in preventing double taxation and ensuring equitable allocation of tax liability. The computation of the member's share as per section 67A has also been clarified in case law, ensuring that only the appropriate portion of income is attributed to each member.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 310 vs. Section 86

      Both provisions follow a similar structure:

      • General rule: Member's share not taxable if taxed at AOP/BOI level.
      • Exception: Member's share taxable if AOP/BOI not itself taxed.
      • Special rule: Member's share excluded from total income if AOP/BOI taxed at maximum marginal rate; included otherwise.

      Clause 310, however, slightly reorganizes the sequence of rules, first stating the general exemption, then the exception, and finally the special treatment based on the tax rate. Section 86, in contrast, embeds the special rules in the provisos.

      Substantive Differences and Similarities

      • Scope of Applicability: Section 86 expressly excludes companies and co-operative societies or registered societies from its scope. Clause 310 does not repeat this exclusion in the text provided, but this may be addressed in other clauses of the Bill or in definitions.
      • Reference to Computation: Section 86 refers to computation u/s 67A, while Clause 310 refers to section 309, indicating a renumbering or reorganization in the new Bill.
      • Taxation at Maximum Marginal Rate: Both provisions ensure that where the AOP/BOI is taxed at the highest rate, the member's share is not taxed again, upholding the principle of single taxation.
      • Taxation When AOP/BOI Not Taxable: Both provide that if the AOP/BOI is not taxed, the member's share is taxed in his hands, preventing revenue loss.
      • Sequencing and Clarity: Clause 310 arguably provides greater clarity by separating the exceptions and special cases into distinct sub-sections, potentially making the provision easier to interpret and apply.

      Policy Continuity and Evolution

      The essential policy-avoiding double taxation and ensuring all income is taxed once, at either the entity or member level-is preserved in both provisions. Clause 310 appears to be a restatement and clarification of Section 86, rather than a substantive departure. The reorganization may reflect an effort to modernize and streamline the law, making it more accessible to taxpayers and administrators.

      Practical Implications

      For Members of AOP/BOI

      Members need to determine whether the AOP/BOI is taxed at the entity level and at what rate. If taxed at the maximum marginal rate, they are relieved from further tax on their share. If the entity is not taxed, they must include their share in their own returns. This requires access to information about the AOP/BOI's tax status, which may not always be straightforward, especially for passive investors.

      For AOPs/BOIs

      The provisions incentivize AOPs/BOIs to be transparent in their tax affairs and to communicate their tax status to members. Where the entity is taxed at a lower rate, members may face additional tax at their personal rates, affecting the overall tax efficiency of the structure.

      For Tax Administrators

      Administrators must ensure that income is not taxed twice, nor left untaxed. The need for cross-verification between the returns of AOPs/BOIs and their members imposes an administrative burden. The clarity and sequencing in Clause 310 may assist in reducing disputes and facilitating compliance.

      Compliance and Procedural Aspects

      Members must obtain information about the computation of their share and the tax status of the entity. They may need certificates or statements from the AOP/BOI. Failure to correctly report the share may lead to disputes and penalties.

      Conclusion

      Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a continuity and rationalization of the principles enshrined in Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both provisions are designed to allocate tax liability in respect of income from AOPs/BOIs in a manner that is fair, equitable, and administratively feasible. The reorganization and clarification in Clause 310 are welcome, as they enhance the accessibility and comprehensibility of the law.

      Going forward, further refinement may be needed in areas such as the definition of AOP/BOI, the treatment of losses, and the mechanics of information sharing between entities and members. Judicial clarification may also be required in cases of ambiguity or unintended consequences. Overall, the provisions reflect a mature and balanced approach to the taxation of collective entities in India.


      Full Text:

      Clause 310 Share of member of association of persons or body of individuals in income of association or body.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax