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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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

      Examination of provision of Disqualification from Tonnage Tax Scheme : Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The tonnage tax regime is a specialized taxation scheme for shipping companies, designed to provide certainty and competitive tax rates in line with international practices. Both the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (specifically Clause 231(12)) and the Income-tax Act, 1961 (specifically Section 115VS) contain provisions that regulate the eligibility and disqualification criteria for companies wishing to opt for or continue under the tonnage tax scheme. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 231(12), its legislative intent, operational mechanics, practical implications, and a detailed comparative analysis with Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Objective and Purpose

      The tonnage tax scheme was introduced into Indian law to create a competitive and stable fiscal environment for the shipping industry. The regime allows qualifying shipping companies to compute taxable income based on the net tonnage of their ships, rather than traditional profit-based computation, thereby reducing administrative complexity and aligning Indian law with global best practices.

      The core objective of Clause 231(12) and Section 115VS is to ensure the integrity of the tonnage tax scheme by prohibiting companies from arbitrarily entering and exiting the regime, or from benefitting from the scheme after significant non-compliance or regulatory exclusion. These provisions serve as a deterrent against misuse and maintain the scheme's intended stability.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 231(12) reads as follows:

      A qualifying company,--
      (a) which on its own, opts out of the tonnage tax scheme; or
      (b) which makes a default in complying with the provisions contained in sections 232(1) to (20); or
      (c) whose option has been excluded from tonnage tax scheme in pursuance of an order made u/s 234(4),
      shall not be eligible to opt for tonnage tax scheme for ten years from the date of opting out or default or order.

      1. Disqualification Triggers

      • (a) Voluntary Opting Out: If a qualifying company chooses to exit the tonnage tax scheme on its own volition, it is disqualified from re-entering the scheme for a period of ten years from the date of opting out. This provision deters companies from opportunistically moving in and out of the scheme based on short-term tax planning considerations.
      • (b) Default in Compliance: Any default in complying with the provisions of sections 232(1) to (20) results in a similar ten-year disqualification. Sections 232(1) to (20) likely pertain to operational, reporting, and compliance obligations necessary for continued eligibility under the tonnage tax regime. This ensures that only consistently compliant companies benefit from the scheme.
      • (c) Exclusion by Order: If a company's option is excluded via a formal order u/s 234(4), usually due to serious non-compliance or regulatory breaches, the company faces the same ten-year bar. This formalizes the consequences of regulatory action and strengthens enforcement.

      2. Ten-Year Disqualification Period

      The ten-year period is a significant deterrent, reflecting the legislature's intention to prevent abuse of the tonnage tax scheme. It is calculated from the date of the triggering event-i.e., the date of opting out, default, or the exclusion order. This long exclusion period emphasizes the importance of regulatory compliance and the seriousness with which the legislature views the integrity of the tonnage tax regime.

      3. Scope and Coverage

      Clause 231(12) is broad in its scope, covering all possible avenues through which a company might lose eligibility-whether voluntarily, through non-compliance, or by regulatory action. The provision is clearly worded, leaving little room for interpretational ambiguity regarding the circumstances that trigger the disqualification.

      4. Legislative Intent and Policy Considerations

      The legislative intent is to foster long-term commitment to the tonnage tax regime and to ensure that only genuinely qualifying and compliant companies benefit from its concessions. The ten-year lockout period discourages companies from using the scheme as a transient tax planning tool. It also incentivizes robust compliance and discourages regulatory infractions.

      5. Interplay with Other Provisions

      Clause 231(12) operates in tandem with other provisions governing the tonnage tax scheme. For example, Clause 231(9) outlines the circumstances in which the option ceases to have effect, while Clause 231(10)-(11) addresses renewal procedures. Clause 231(12) acts as the enforcement mechanism, ensuring that companies which have lost eligibility cannot immediately re-enter the regime.

      6. Procedural Safeguards

      While Clause 231(12) itself is a substantive disqualification, procedural fairness is built into the overall framework (see Clause 231(5)), which ensures that companies are given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before exclusion. This aligns with principles of natural justice.

      Practical Implications

      1. For Shipping Companies

      • Long-Term Tax Planning: Companies must carefully assess their long-term business strategy before opting for or exiting the tonnage tax scheme, given the ten-year prohibition on re-entry.
      • Compliance Culture: The risk of a decade-long exclusion incentivizes companies to maintain stringent internal controls, robust compliance mechanisms, and timely reporting.
      • Risk Management: Companies must be vigilant in avoiding defaults, as even inadvertent non-compliance can trigger the disqualification penalty.

      2. For Tax Authorities

      • Enforcement Leverage: Tax authorities are equipped with a potent tool to enforce compliance and deter abuse of the tonnage tax regime.
      • Administrative Efficiency: The clear-cut ten-year exclusion reduces the need for repetitive eligibility assessments and enhances administrative certainty.

      3. For the Shipping Industry

      • Industry Stability: The provision promotes stability and predictability, aligning with international practices and making India an attractive jurisdiction for shipping operations.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 231(12) vs. Section 115VS

      Textual Comparison

      Section 115VS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides:

      A qualifying company, which, on its own, opts out of the tonnage tax scheme or makes a default in complying with the provisions of section 115VT or section 115VU or section 115VV or whose option has been excluded from tonnage tax scheme in pursuance of an order made under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC, shall not be eligible to opt for tonnage tax scheme for a period of ten years from the date of opting out or default or order, as the case may be.

      The essential structure of Section 115VS is similar to Clause 231(12), but with the following differences:

      • Section 115VS references specific sections (115VT, 115VU, 115VV) in relation to defaults, whereas Clause 231(12) refers more generally to "the provisions contained in sections 232(1) to (20)".
      • Section 115VS refers to exclusion by order u/s 115VZC(1); Clause 231(12) refers to exclusion u/s 234(4).

      1. Structural and Substantive Similarities

      • Disqualification Triggers: Both provisions disqualify companies from re-entering the tonnage tax regime for ten years if they (a) voluntarily opt out, (b) default in compliance, or (c) are excluded by order.
      • Ten-Year Bar: The duration of the prohibition is identical-ten years from the relevant event.
      • Legislative Objective: Both are designed to prevent opportunistic behavior and ensure the integrity of the tonnage tax system.

      2. Differences in Drafting and Scope

      • Reference to Compliance Provisions:
        • Section 115VS makes explicit reference to specific sections (115VT, 115VU, 115VV) for compliance defaults, whereas Clause 231(12) refers more generally to "sections 232(1) to (20)." The latter may represent a consolidation or expansion of compliance requirements in the new Bill, potentially streamlining or broadening the scope of compliance obligations.
      • Exclusion Order Reference:
        • Section 115VS refers to exclusion under "an order made under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC," while Clause 231(12) refers to "an order made u/s 234(4)." This reflects a renumbering or reorganization of the statutory framework in the new Bill, but the substantive effect remains the same.
      • Language and Clarity:
        • Clause 231(12) uses more modern, simplified language and groups the triggers more clearly, enhancing accessibility and reducing ambiguity.
      • Integration with Application and Renewal Provisions:
        • Clause 231 of the 2025 Bill comprehensively sets out the application, approval, renewal, and cessation mechanisms for the tonnage tax scheme within a single section, whereas the 1961 Act disperses these across multiple sections. This structural integration may improve coherence and ease of understanding.

      3. Evolution and Policy Shifts

      • The shift from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill appears to reflect a move towards codification, modernization, and simplification of tax law. The consolidation of compliance triggers and the explicit reference to a range of compliance obligations (sections 232(1) to (20)) in the 2025 Bill may indicate a broader or more detailed compliance regime, potentially capturing a wider range of defaults.
      • The continued retention of the ten-year exclusion period underscores the legislature's ongoing commitment to the stability and integrity of the tonnage tax regime.

      4. Potential Ambiguities and Issues

      • Scope of Compliance Obligations: The reference to "sections 232(1) to (20)" in Clause 231(12) may require careful interpretation to ascertain the full extent of compliance obligations. If these sections are broader than the corresponding provisions in the 1961 Act, companies may face a wider array of potential defaults leading to disqualification.
      • Procedural Fairness: Both regimes appear to provide for procedural fairness (opportunity of being heard) before exclusion, but the precise procedural safeguards may differ based on the broader context of the new Bill.

      5. International Comparisons and Unique Features

      • The ten-year exclusion period is consistent with international tonnage tax regimes, which often include similar lockout periods to prevent abuse. The Indian approach is neither unusually harsh nor lenient by global standards.
      • The Indian regime's explicit enumeration of compliance triggers and the integration of application and renewal procedures within a single legislative framework may be considered a best practice for clarity and administrative efficiency.

      Conclusion

      Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 perform a critical gatekeeping function in the administration of the tonnage tax scheme. By imposing a ten-year disqualification on companies that opt out, default, or are excluded by order, these provisions safeguard the integrity of the regime, deter opportunistic behavior, and incentivize long-term compliance. The 2025 Bill retains the core features of the earlier law while modernizing and clarifying the drafting, potentially expanding the scope of compliance obligations. For shipping companies, the message is clear: entry into the tonnage tax regime is a serious, long-term commitment, and any deviation from compliance or regulatory expectations carries significant consequences.


      Full Text:

      Clause 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax