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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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