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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Exemption from Income Tax Return Filing for Non-Resident Indians : Clause 216 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115G of Income-tax Act, 1961

      5 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 216 Return of income not to be furnished in certain cases.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 216 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 115G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address a critical compliance aspect for non-resident Indians (NRIs) concerning the filing of income tax returns in India. These provisions aim to streamline the tax compliance regime for NRIs, particularly in scenarios where their Indian-sourced income is limited to certain passive categories and has already been subjected to tax deduction at source (TDS). The legislative intent behind such provisions is to reduce the procedural burden on NRIs, facilitate ease of doing business, and ensure that the tax administration focuses on cases where further scrutiny is warranted. This commentary offers a detailed examination of Clause 216, systematically analyzes its contents, and juxtaposes it with the existing Section 115G, highlighting similarities, differences, and the implications for stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 216 and Section 115G is to provide a conditional exemption from the mandatory filing of income tax returns for NRIs whose Indian income profile is simple and transparent. The underlying policy considerations include:

      • Reducing unnecessary compliance for NRIs with limited and straightforward income sources in India.
      • Ensuring that the revenue's interests are protected through the mechanism of TDS.
      • Aligning Indian tax compliance requirements with global best practices for non-resident taxation.
      • Encouraging foreign investment and remittance flows by making the tax regime more NRI-friendly.

      Historically, the compliance burden for NRIs has been a matter of concern, especially given the complexities of dual taxation, foreign exchange rules, and the need to maintain tax residency status. Section 115G was introduced as part of a special regime for NRIs under Chapter XII-A of the 1961 Act, and Clause 216 appears to be its successor in the proposed 2025 Bill, reflecting a continuity of legislative purpose with possible updates in terminology and procedural references.

      Detailed Analysis

      1. Applicability and Scope

      Clause 216: Applies to a "non-resident Indian" and provides that it shall not be necessary for such a person to furnish a return of income u/s 263(1) if two conditions are met:

      1. The total income during the tax year consisted only of investment income or income by way of long-term capital gains or both; and
      2. The tax deductible at source under Chapter XIX-B has been deducted from such income.

      Section 115G: Applies to a "non-resident Indian" and provides that it shall not be necessary to furnish a return u/s 139(1) if:

      1. The total income in respect of which the person is assessable under the Act during the previous year consisted only of investment income or income by way of long-term capital gains or both; and
      2. The tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B has been deducted from such income.

      Comparison: Both provisions are nearly identical in their applicability, focusing on NRIs with income limited to investment income and/or long-term capital gains. The key differences are in the references to the relevant sections for return filing (section 263(1) in the Bill and section 139(1) in the 1961 Act) and the chapters governing TDS (XIX-B vs. XVII-B).

      2. Definitions and Terminology

      Non-resident Indian: Both provisions employ the term "non-resident Indian," which is typically defined elsewhere in the respective statutes. The definition generally includes an individual being a citizen of India or a person of Indian origin, who is not a resident in India.

      Investment Income: This term is specifically defined in Chapter XII-A of the 1961 Act and refers to income derived from foreign exchange assets. It is expected that the 2025 Bill would carry forward or suitably modify this definition.

      Long-term Capital Gains: Both provisions include income by way of long-term capital gains, which refers to gains arising from the transfer of capital assets held for a specified period.

      Tax Deductible at Source: The requirement is that TDS must have been deducted as per the relevant chapter (XVII-B in the 1961 Act, XIX-B in the 2025 Bill). This ensures that the tax liability on such income has been discharged at source.

      3. Procedural Aspects

      Return Filing Requirement: The core relief under both provisions is the exemption from filing the return of income. In the 1961 Act, the general obligation to file a return is u/s 139(1). In the 2025 Bill, it is u/s 263(1), which presumably serves a similar function.

      Conditions for Exemption:

      • The NRI's total income must be exclusively from investment income and/or long-term capital gains.
      • TDS must have been properly deducted on all such income.

      If either condition is not met-such as the NRI having other sources of income or TDS not being deducted-the exemption does not apply, and the NRI is required to file a return.

      4. Chapter Reference and Legislative Framework

      1961 Act: Chapter XVII-B deals with TDS provisions. Section 139(1) is the principal provision mandating the filing of income tax returns.

      2025 Bill: The references are to Chapter XIX-B for TDS and section 263(1) for return filing. These changes are likely a result of the re-codification and restructuring of the statute in the new Bill. The substance, however, remains consistent.

      5. Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation

      • Definition Consistency: The precise definitions of "investment income" and "non-resident Indian" must be consistently maintained to avoid interpretational disputes.
      • Scope of Income: The phrase "consisted only of investment income or income by way of long-term capital gains or both" excludes NRIs with any other Indian income (e.g., salary, business, or short-term capital gains) from the exemption.
      • TDS Compliance: The requirement is that TDS "has been deducted," but the provision does not clarify the consequences if TDS is deducted at an incorrect rate or if there is a shortfall.
      • Procedural Reference Changes: The shift from Chapter XVII-B/section 139(1) to Chapter XIX-B/section 263(1) may create transitional confusion unless the corresponding provisions are clearly mapped in the new legislation.

      Practical Implications

      For Non-Resident Indians

      • Compliance Relief: NRIs with only investment income or long-term capital gains, and where TDS has been deducted, are spared the procedural burden of return filing.
      • Risk of Non-Compliance: If an NRI erroneously assumes exemption but has other income or insufficient TDS, penalties for non-filing may be attracted.
      • Documentation: NRIs should retain evidence of TDS deduction and the nature of their income to defend their exemption status in case of scrutiny.

      For Tax Authorities

      • Administrative Efficiency: The exemption allows the tax department to focus resources on more complex cases, as simple, fully-taxed incomes are filtered out.
      • Monitoring Mechanism: Effective information exchange with financial institutions and TDS deductors is essential to ensure that the exemption is not misused.

      For Financial Institutions and Deductors

      • Accurate TDS Deduction: Banks and other intermediaries must ensure correct TDS rates are applied to NRI investment incomes and capital gains.
      • Reporting Obligations: Deductors should provide TDS certificates and report such deductions to the tax authorities to facilitate cross-verification.

      For Policymakers

      • Policy Continuity: The near-identical framing of Clause 216 and Section 115G reflects a policy continuity and a recognition of the efficacy of the existing exemption.
      • Modernization and Clarity: The restructuring of chapter and section references should be accompanied by clear transitional provisions and public awareness initiatives.

      Comparative Table: Clause 216 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 115G of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      ProvisionClause 216 Section 115G 
      Return of Income Not to be FurnishedExemption from furnishing return u/s 263(1)Exemption from furnishing return u/s 139(1)
      EligibilityNon-resident IndianNon-resident Indian
      Nature of IncomeOnly investment income or long-term capital gains or bothOnly investment income or long-term capital gains or both
      Tax Deducted at SourceDeducted under Chapter XIX-BDeducted under Chapter XVII-B
      Time ReferenceTax yearPrevious year

      Comparative Analysis

      1. Legislative Continuity and Changes

      The comparison reveals that Clause 216 is a direct successor to Section 115G, with cosmetic changes in procedural references due to the reorganization of the statute. The substance, scope, and conditionalities remain unchanged, signaling that the legislature finds the existing framework effective and uncontroversial.

      2. Key Similarities

      • Both target NRIs with income limited to investment income and/or long-term capital gains.
      • Both require that TDS must have been deducted on all such income for the exemption to apply.
      • Both grant a complete exemption from filing a return if conditions are satisfied.

      3. Key Differences

      • Section References: The 1961 Act refers to section 139(1) and Chapter XVII-B, while the 2025 Bill refers to section 263(1) and Chapter XIX-B. These are essentially equivalent in their respective statutes.
      • Terminology Updates: The 2025 Bill may have updated definitions and procedural frameworks, which could affect the practical application of the provision.

      4. International Comparison

      Globally, many jurisdictions offer similar compliance relief to non-residents with limited and fully-taxed income sources. For instance, the United States exempts certain non-residents from filing returns if their only U.S. income is subject to withholding at source at the correct rate. The Indian approach aligns with these international best practices, promoting ease of compliance for inbound investments and remittances.

      5. Potential Issues and Recommendations

      • Clarity in Definitions: The definitions of "investment income," "long-term capital gains," and "non-resident Indian" must be harmonized and clearly cross-referenced in the new Bill to avoid interpretational disputes.
      • Transition Management: The migration from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill should be managed with clear guidance to taxpayers and professionals regarding the mapping of old and new provisions.
      • Addressing TDS Errors: The provision could clarify the treatment of cases where TDS is deducted at a lower rate or not at all due to deductor error, to avoid penalizing innocent NRIs.
      • Digital Integration: The exemption regime can be further strengthened by integrating TDS data with the tax portal, allowing automatic recognition of exemption eligibility for NRIs.

      Conclusion

      Clause 216 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a faithful continuation of the policy enshrined in Section 115G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing targeted compliance relief to NRIs with simple, fully-taxed income profiles. The provision strikes a balance between administrative efficiency, taxpayer convenience, and revenue protection. Its effectiveness, however, depends on clear definitions, robust information exchange, and careful transition management as the new regime is implemented. The approach aligns with global practices and will likely continue to serve as a model for NRI taxation in India. Policymakers may consider further refinements to address practical issues such as TDS errors and to leverage technology for seamless compliance verification.


      Full Text:

      Clause 216 Return of income not to be furnished in certain cases.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax