Loading...

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 characters 0/2000
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

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Act Rules Bills
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Act Rules Bills
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Doctrine of Reasonable Cause in Tax Penalties : Clause 470 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Voluntary Disclosure and Penalty Waiver under Indian Tax Law : Clause 469 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penalties for Non-Compliance with TDCAN/TAN Requirements : Clause 468 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penalty Provision for PAN/Aadhaar Non-Compliance in Indian Tax Law : Clause 467 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penalty Provisions for deterrence against non-cooperation with tax authorities : Clause 466 of Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Procedural Defaults and Penalties in Indian Tax Law : Clause 465 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Ensuring Compliance Among Tax-Exempt Entities : Clause 464 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Professionals(i.e. Accountant, Marchant Banker, Registered Valuer) Accountability under Indian Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enforcement of Information Disclosure in Cross-Border Transactions : Clause 462 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penalty Provisions for Non-Filing and Incorrect Filing of TDS/TCS Statements : Clause 461 of the Inc...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enforcement of Reporting Obligations by a non-resident having liaison office : Clause 460 of Income ...
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Act Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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 Rules Bills
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.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Reasonable cause defense protects taxpayers from penalties for bona fide, non culpable defaults and encourages documented compliance.
Clause 470 creates an exception to specified penalty provisions: no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was reasonable cause for the failure. It functions as a non obstante provision covering enumerated sections, shifts the burden of proof to the taxpayer, and is aimed primarily at bona fide procedural or technical lapses rather than deliberate violations.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Voluntary disclosure and penalty waiver enable administrative relief when pre detection disclosure, cooperation and payment conditions are met.
Clause 469 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties under section 439 where a taxpayer has made a full and true voluntary disclosure before detection, cooperated in assessment and paid or arranged payment of tax or interest; it includes a deeming rule for full disclosure, prior approval safeguards for high value cases, a bar on multiple reliefs, a genuine hardship route with recorded reasons, a twelve month disposal limit, opportunity to be heard, and finality of orders.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for failure to quote TDCAN/TAN: discretionary fixed sanctions apply for non compliance and knowingly false quoting.
Clause 468 empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a fixed monetary penalty for failure to comply with Section 397 and for quoting a false Tax Deduction and Collection Account Number in prescribed documents where the person knows or believes it to be false, making the penalty discretionary and imposing a mens rea requirement for false quoting while not expressly providing for a statutory opportunity of being heard.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
PAN/Aadhaar compliance: new per-default penalty regime distinguishes intentional false quoting from strict liability omissions and extends responsible person liability.
Clause 467 establishes a per-default penalty regime for non-compliance with section 262, differentiating intentional false PAN/Aadhaar quoting-which requires proof of knowledge or belief-from omissions treated as strict liability, and extends liability to persons responsible for ensuring correct quoting/authentication; it emphasizes authentication and digital e KYC integration while remaining silent on express procedural safeguards such as the opportunity to be heard, creating potential due process and transitional issues.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for non cooperation: new provision allows senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty without explicit hearing safeguards.
Clause 466 empowers specified senior tax officers to impose a moderate monetary penalty for failure to comply with section 254, mirroring prior penalty structure in authority and capped quantum but omitting express procedural safeguards such as an opportunity of being heard, defences like reasonable cause, and a requirement to record reasons, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and consistency in imposition.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for procedural defaults: fixed and daily fines, capped to tax collectible, with delegated authority to impose them.
Clause 465 creates a penalty regime for procedural non compliance under the Income Tax Bill, 2025: a fixed penalty for discrete defaults, a daily penalty for continuing defaults, a cap tying certain penalties to the amount of tax deductible or collectible, and specified authorities empowered to impose penalties; it broadens the definition of income tax authority and updates cross references to the restructured Bill, while notably omitting an explicit provision requiring an opportunity to be heard before penalty imposition.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty regime for failure to furnish prescribed statements strengthens compliance under tax exempt reporting obligations.
A statutory penalty regime targets failure by specified research institutions and charitable funds to furnish prescribed documents, statements, or certificates within prescribed timeframes; penalties fall within a prescribed band and are imposed at the discretion of the Assessing Officer, operating as a civil compliance measure alongside general procedural safeguards and requiring stakeholders to update compliance processes to align with re referenced substantive sections.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Professional accountability: penalty for furnishing incorrect information in professional reports or certificates under the new income tax bill.
Clause 463 imposes a strict-liability penalty regime on accountants, merchant bankers and registered valuers for furnishing incorrect information in any report or certificate under the Act or rules. It prescribes a fixed per-instance monetary penalty and empowers the Assessing Officer, Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) to impose the penalty upon satisfaction that incorrect information was furnished. The clause updates definitional references for valuers, omits an explicit definition of "accountant," and operates without prejudice to other civil or criminal consequences.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for failure to furnish information: fixed sanction for inaccurate or missing cross-border disclosure, raising proportionality concerns.
Clause 462 penalises any person required to furnish information under section 397(3)(d) who fails to supply such information or furnishes inaccurate information; the Assessing Officer may impose a fixed monetary penalty, the provision mirrors Section 271I in structure and intent, lacks an express reasonable-cause defence or gradation of penalty, and raises interpretative issues as to the scope of "inaccurate information," procedural safeguards, and proportionality in enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for failure to furnish statements: discretionary fines with short grace period where tax is paid and statement filed promptly.
Clause 461 creates a penalty for failure to deliver statements under section 397(3)(b) or for furnishing incorrect information, authorising the Assessing Officer to impose a discretionary monetary penalty equivalent in range to the existing Section 271H. Clause 461(2) exempts penalty where tax, fee and interest are paid to the Central Government and the statement is filed within a short grace period, thereby balancing deterrence with relief for prompt substantive compliance while leaving procedural safeguards and definitions, such as "incorrect information," unclearly specified.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Penalty for failure to submit statements may be imposed by the assessing officer as a daily or capped sanction, discretion preserved.
Clause 460 permits the Assessing Officer to impose discretionary monetary penalties on any person required to furnish a statement under section 505 for failure to file within the prescribed period, using a two-tier structure of a daily sanction for short-term delay and a capped penalty for longer default, with applicability dependent on the scope of the parent reporting obligation and subject to the general procedural and appellate framework of the tax law.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

computation of tonnage income where ships are jointly operated or where multiple companies are involved in the operation of a qualifying ship : Clause 227(7)-(8) of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115VH of Income-tax Act, 1961

10 May, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Clause 227 Computation of tonnage income.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

The taxation of shipping companies has long been a specialized area within income tax legislation, given the unique nature of the shipping industry and the international context in which it operates. The tonnage tax regime, as an alternative to conventional income computation, aims to provide a predictable and simplified method for determining the taxable income of shipping companies based on the tonnage of ships rather than actual profits. This approach is intended to enhance competitiveness, reduce administrative burden, and align Indian law with international practices.

Clause 227 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is the proposed legislative provision addressing the computation of tonnage income for shipping companies opting for this regime. Within this clause, sub-sections (7) and (8) specifically address the computation of tonnage income in cases where ships are jointly operated or where multiple companies are involved in the operation of a qualifying ship. These provisions are directly analogous to Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which currently governs such scenarios.

This commentary provides a detailed examination of Clause 227(7) and (8), exploring their objectives, mechanisms, and implications, followed by a comparative analysis with Section 115VH. The analysis aims to elucidate the legal continuity, innovations, and potential issues arising from the proposed legislative changes.

Objective and Purpose

The primary objective of Clause 227(7)-(8) is to establish a clear and equitable methodology for the allocation and computation of tonnage income when qualifying ships are operated by more than one company. The rationale behind these provisions is rooted in the operational realities of the shipping industry, where joint ventures, pooling arrangements, and chartering agreements are commonplace. Without such specific provisions, the computation of taxable income could become contentious or lead to double taxation or under-taxation.

Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, serves the same purpose within the existing legal framework. The inclusion of similar provisions in the new Bill underscores the legislature's intent to maintain continuity in this area, ensuring that the transition to the new regime does not disrupt established practices or create uncertainty for stakeholders.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Interpretation and Legal Principles

1. Joint Operation and Proportionate Allocation - Clause 227(7)

  • Clause 227(7) addresses scenarios where two or more companies jointly operate a qualifying ship, either through joint ownership or by agreement for its use, and where their respective shares are "definite and ascertainable." In such cases, the provision mandates that each company's tonnage income be computed in proportion to its share in the joint interest or agreement.
  • This approach is consistent with the general legal principle of taxation based on beneficial ownership and economic interest. By requiring proportional allocation, the law ensures that each company is taxed only on the income attributable to its actual stake in the ship's operation, thereby preventing both over- and under-taxation.
  • The requirement that shares be "definite and ascertainable" is significant, as it precludes arbitrary or ambiguous allocations. This aligns with broader principles in tax law that seek to avoid uncertainty and potential abuse in the allocation of income among related or unrelated parties.

2. Independent Computation Where Shares Are Not Definite - Clause 227(8)

  • Clause 227(8) operates as a residual provision. It applies where two or more companies are operators of a qualifying ship, but the scenario does not fall within the scope of sub-section (7)-typically, where the respective shares are not definite and ascertainable.
  • In such cases, the provision requires that the tonnage income of each company be computed "as if each had been the only operator." This fiction ensures that each operator is treated independently for the purposes of tonnage income computation, thereby eliminating the need for complex apportionment in cases where the actual shares cannot be reliably determined.
  • This approach serves an anti-avoidance function, preventing companies from structuring arrangements in a manner that could obscure their true economic interest or lead to tax arbitrage. It also aligns with the administrative need for certainty and simplicity in the application of the tonnage tax regime.

Ambiguities and Potential Issues

  • Definiteness of Shares: The provision hinges on the concept of "definite and ascertainable" shares. While this is a standard phrase in tax legislation, its application may raise interpretive questions, particularly in complex pooling or consortium arrangements where shares may fluctuate or be subject to adjustment.
  • Overlap Between Sub-sections (7) and (8): The drafting of Clause 227(8) as "subject to" sub-section (7) clarifies the hierarchy but may still leave room for disputes over whether a particular arrangement falls under (7) or (8), especially where documentation is incomplete or ambiguous.
  • Interaction with International Arrangements: Given the cross-border nature of shipping, there may be cases where the allocation of tonnage income under Indian law interacts with foreign tax laws, raising issues of double taxation or non-taxation.

Practical Implications

1. Impact on Shipping Companies

For shipping companies, these provisions provide clarity and predictability in the computation of tonnage income where joint operations are involved. Companies entering into joint ventures or chartering arrangements can structure their agreements with the knowledge that their tax liability will be proportionate to their economic interest, provided that such interest is clearly defined and documented.

In cases where shares are not definite or cannot be ascertained, companies are incentivized to clarify their arrangements to avoid the default rule under Clause 227(8), which may result in less favorable tax treatment or increased administrative burden.

2. Compliance and Documentation

The emphasis on "definite and ascertainable" shares underscores the importance of robust documentation. Companies must ensure that their agreements clearly specify the basis for the allocation of income and are supported by contemporaneous records. Failure to do so may expose them to the risk of the tax authorities applying the independent operator rule under Clause 227(8).

3. Tax Administration

From the perspective of tax authorities, these provisions facilitate the administration of the tonnage tax regime by providing clear rules for the allocation of income. However, they also require vigilance in scrutinizing the terms of joint operating agreements to ensure that the declared shares reflect the actual economic substance of the arrangements.

4. Cross-Border Considerations

Given the international nature of shipping, these provisions may interact with the tax laws of other jurisdictions. Companies must be mindful of potential mismatches in the allocation of income, which could give rise to double taxation or disputes over taxing rights.

Comparative Analysis with Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Structural and Substantive Parity

A close reading of Clause 227(7)-(8) and Section 115VH reveals that the provisions are virtually identical in both structure and substance. Both set out a two-step approach:

  1. Where shares are definite and ascertainable, allocate income proportionately (sub-section (7) / sub-section (1)).
  2. Where not, compute income for each company as if it were the sole operator (sub-section (8) / sub-section (2)).

The use of nearly identical language ensures continuity and minimizes disruption for stakeholders transitioning from the 1961 Act to the proposed 2025 regime.

Legislative Intent and Continuity

The replication of Section 115VH in Clause 227(7)-(8) reflects a deliberate legislative choice to retain the established approach to joint operations under the tonnage tax regime. This is consistent with the broader objective of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, which seeks to modernize and consolidate tax law without fundamentally altering the substantive rules governing key sectors.

Differences and Potential Innovations

While the core provisions are the same, the context within which Clause 227(7)-(8) operates is somewhat broader, as the 2025 Bill also updates related definitions, the methodology for computation, and the integration with other regulatory frameworks (e.g., the Inland Vessels Act, 2021, and updated rules for certificates of tonnage). This may have indirect implications for the application of these sub-sections, particularly in cases involving new categories of vessels or updated certification procedures.

Additionally, the 2025 Bill's overall structure and the cross-referencing of definitions and procedures may enhance clarity and ease of administration, even if the substantive rules remain unchanged.

Comparative Summary Table

Provision Clause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Comments
Proportionate allocation where shares are  definite and ascertainable Explicitly provided in sub-section (7) Explicitly provided in sub-section (1) No substantive difference
Independent computation where shares are not definite Explicitly provided in sub-section (8) Explicitly provided in sub-section (2) No substantive difference
Interaction with broader tonnage tax regime Integrated with updated definitions and procedures (e.g., certificates, deemed tonnage, inland vessels) Operates within the older framework Potential for improved clarity and administration under the 2025 Bill

Potential Areas for Reform or Clarification

  • Clarification of "Definite and Ascertainable": Given the practical importance of this phrase, legislative or administrative guidance on its meaning could reduce disputes and enhance certainty.
  • Documentation Requirements: Explicit requirements regarding the documentation needed to substantiate shares in joint operations could improve compliance and reduce litigation.
  • Interaction with International Tax Treaties: Guidance on the application of these provisions in cross-border contexts could help address potential double taxation issues.

Conclusion

Clause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation of the established approach to the computation of tonnage income in cases of joint operation of qualifying ships, as set out in Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions are designed to ensure equitable allocation of income based on economic interest, provide administrative simplicity, and prevent tax avoidance. While the substantive rules remain unchanged, the updated context and integration with related provisions in the 2025 Bill may enhance clarity and ease of administration. Further guidance on key concepts and documentation requirements could further strengthen the regime and reduce the scope for disputes.


Full Text:

Clause 227 Computation of tonnage income.

Topics

Acts Income Tax