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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced 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
    Voidable Transfers in Tax Law : Clause 499 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 281 of the Incom...
    Act Rules Bills
    Changing Face of Criminal Procedure in Income Tax Offence Prosecution : Clause 498 of Income Tax Bil...
    Act Rules Bills
    Procedural Reform in Tax Offence Trials : Clause 497 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 280C o...
    Act Rules Bills
    Jurisdictional Framework for Tax Prosecutions : Clause 496 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Designation and functioning of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the proposed legislati...
    Act Rules Bills
    Legal Protections against Unauthorized Disclosure in Indian Tax Law : Clause 494 of Income Tax Bill,...
    Act Rules Bills
    Proof of Official Entries in Tax Prosecutions : Clause 493 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Comparative Review of Non-Cognizable Offences in Indian Income Tax Legislation : Clause 492 of the I...
    Act Rules Bills
    Safeguards and Procedures in Income Tax Prosecution : Clause 491 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Act Rules Bills
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Act Rules Bills
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Act Rules Bills
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Voidable asset transfers: transfers during tax proceedings can be voided against tax claims, with exceptions for bona fide transferees.
Clause 499 renders charges or transfers of assets void against tax claims when effected during proceedings or after completion but before service of recovery notice, covering transfers by sale, mortgage, gift, exchange or any other mode and an expansive list of assets including virtual digital assets. Exceptions protect transfers made for adequate consideration without notice and those with prior permission of the Assessing Officer, while stock in trade is excluded; the clause updates procedural references and preserves core safeguards from the predecessor provision.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Application of new criminal procedure code aligns tax prosecutions under updated procedures, altering prosecutor status and qualification requirements.
Clause 498 applies the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to Special Court proceedings under the Income Tax Bill, deeming the person conducting the prosecution to be a Public Prosecutor and enabling the Central Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors. Appointments require an experienced advocate with "special knowledge of law", and appointees are treated as Public Prosecutors within the BNSS definition, thereby importing BNSS powers, duties and procedural rules to tax prosecutions.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Summons case classification: minor tax offences must be tried by Special Courts under the new criminal procedure framework.
Clause 497 requires that offences under the Income Tax Bill punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years, or with fine, or with both, be tried as summons cases by a Special Court, overriding contrary BNSS provisions and applying the BNSS summons-case procedure accordingly.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts centralises tax prosecutions, with cognizance only on authorised complaints.
Clause 496 mandates exclusive trial of income tax offences by designated Special Courts, subject to actual designation for relevant areas or classes of cases, and contains a non obstante provision giving it overriding effect over the general criminal procedure code. Cognizance by a Special Court is restricted to complaints filed by authorities authorised under the Act. Transitional rules preserve continuity by allowing designated courts to continue existing and future trials and permitting non designated courts to finish pending matters; the clause cross references the Bill's procedural provision to align competence within the reorganised statute.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Special Courts designation enables focused, consolidated trials for tax offences and aligns procedure with the new criminal code.
Clause 495 empowers the Central Government, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to notify one or more courts of Judicial Magistrate of the first class as Special Courts for specified areas, cases or classes of cases to try offences under the Income Tax Bill, 2025; it permits these Special Courts to try related offences joined at the same trial under the applicable criminal procedure and updates procedural references to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while preserving the core scheme of Section 280A.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Unauthorized disclosure by public servants criminalised; prosecution requires Central Government sanction and carries imprisonment and fine.
Clause 494 criminalises unauthorized furnishing of taxpayer information or production of documents by a public servant in contravention of the Bill's secrecy provision, prescribes imprisonment and fine, and requires prior sanction of the Central Government before prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of official tax records: certified copies allowed as evidence, easing prosecution while preserving challenge rights.
Clause 493 mandates that entries in records or documents in the custody of an income-tax authority "shall be admitted in evidence" in prosecution proceedings under the chapter and permits proof either by production of the original records or by production of a certified copy signed by the custodian stating it is a true copy and that the originals are in its custody. The clause covers varied formats of records, limits application to criminal proceedings under the chapter, and preserves courts' power to test genuineness and require originals where fairness demands.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Non-cognizable classification of specified tax offences requires magistrate sanction before arrest or investigation, limiting summary enforcement.
Clause 492 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 designates specified income tax offences as non-cognizable for purposes of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by means of a non-obstante provision. As a result, arrest cannot be effected without a magistrate-issued warrant and investigations into those offences require prior magistrate authorization, imposing judicial gatekeeping at the threshold of criminal proceedings and constraining unilateral police action in tax enforcement.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Prior sanction for tax prosecution centralises oversight, enables compounding, and restricts arbitrary criminal initiation against taxpayers.
Clause 491 makes prior sanction by designated senior officers a precondition to prosecution for specified tax offences, authorises senior regional heads and the Board to issue directions, permits compounding of offences at any stage by senior officials, bars prosecution where specified penalties have been reduced or waived, and affirms that statements or documents given to tax authorities remain admissible notwithstanding an expectation of penalty reduction or compounding.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
Act Rules Bills
Show AI Summary
Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Examination of Notice of Demand Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

13 June, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Clause 289 Notice of demand.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are pivotal statutory provisions governing the issuance of a "notice of demand" by the tax authorities to taxpayers. The notice of demand is the formal mechanism through which the tax department communicates the liability determined under the Act and initiates the process for recovery of tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum due. These provisions, although similar in their foundational objective, reflect evolving policy perspectives, technological advancements, and administrative requirements. This commentary offers a detailed, clause-wise analysis of Clause 289, a comparative study with Section 156, and a discussion on their broader legal and practical implications.

Objective and Purpose

The legislative intent behind both Clause 289 and Section 156 is to establish a clear, legally binding process for notifying taxpayers of their dues under the Act. The notice of demand is not merely an administrative formality; it is a statutory precondition for the enforcement of tax recovery. The provisions ensure that taxpayers are informed of the quantum of liability, the basis for such determination, and the timeframe within which payment is to be made. The notice also serves to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer by providing transparency and an opportunity to comply before any coercive recovery measures are initiated.

Historically, the notice of demand has been a cornerstone of tax administration, ensuring due process and fairness. Over time, the scope of these provisions has been expanded to cover not only regular assessment orders but also intimation orders under various automated or summary assessment mechanisms, as well as special provisions for start-up employees receiving specified securities or sweat equity shares.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Sub-section (1): General Rule for Issuance of Notice of Demand

Clause 289(1) mandates that whenever any tax, interest, penalty, fine, or other sum becomes payable as a consequence of any order passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) must serve a notice of demand upon the assessee. The notice must be in the prescribed form and must specify the amount payable.

  • Scope: The provision is broad, covering all types of monetary liabilities arising under the Act, including tax, interest, penalties, fines, and any other sum. This ensures that all forms of liability are subject to the formal notice procedure.
  • Mandatory Nature: The use of the word "shall" makes it obligatory for the AO to issue the notice. This is consistent with the principle of natural justice, ensuring that the taxpayer is formally notified before any recovery proceedings commence.
  • Prescribed Form: The requirement that the notice be in a prescribed form ensures uniformity and reduces ambiguity, facilitating both administrative efficiency and taxpayer understanding.

Sub-section (2): Deemed Notice of Demand for Certain Intimations

Clause 289(2) provides that where any sum is determined to be payable by the assessee, deductor, or collector u/s 270 or 399, the intimation under those sections shall be deemed to be a notice of demand for the purposes of Clause 289.

  • Deeming Fiction: This sub-section introduces a legal fiction by treating certain intimations as equivalent to a formal notice of demand. This is particularly relevant for automated or summary assessments, where the system-generated intimation serves the same purpose as a traditional notice.
  • Administrative Efficiency: By deeming the intimation as a notice of demand, the provision streamlines the process, reduces duplication, and expedites the initiation of recovery proceedings.
  • Coverage: The reference to sections 270 and 399 (presumably corresponding to summary assessments, TDS/TCS processing, or similar mechanisms in the new Bill) ensures that the provision is future-proof and accommodates technological advancements in tax administration.

Sub-section (3): Special Provisions for Start-up Employees - Deferment of Tax Payment on Specified Securities/Sweat Equity

Clause 289(3) addresses a specific scenario involving employees of eligible start-ups who receive specified securities or sweat equity shares as part of their compensation.

  • Triggering Event: The provision applies where the income of the assessee for a tax year includes income of the nature specified in section 17(1)(d) (presumably covering perquisites in the form of specified securities or sweat equity shares).
  • Eligible Start-up: The employer must be an "eligible start-up" as defined in section 140 of the Bill.
  • Deferment Mechanism: The tax or interest on such income, as included in the notice of demand, is payable within fourteen days from the earliest of the following events:
    • After the expiry of sixty months from the end of the relevant tax year;
    • From the date of sale of such specified security or sweat equity share by the assessee;
    • From the date the assessee ceases to be an employee of the employer who allotted or transferred the securities.
  • Policy Rationale: This deferment acknowledges the illiquid nature of such compensation and the challenges faced by start-up employees in liquidating shares to pay taxes. It balances the government's interest in tax collection with the need to foster start-up growth and employee retention.

Comparative Analysis: Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

1. Scope and Structure

Both provisions are fundamentally similar in their core structure, requiring a notice of demand for any sum payable under the Act. Both have expanded to include not just regular assessments but also summary and automated assessment mechanisms.

  • Wording and Breadth: The language in both provisions is broad, covering all forms of liability. The 2025 Bill, however, modernizes references (e.g., "tax year" instead of "assessment year") and aligns with contemporary terminology.
  • Prescribed Form: Both require the notice to be in a prescribed form, ensuring standardization.

2. Deemed Notice of Demand

  • Section 156: The proviso specifically refers to summary assessment and TDS/TCS processing sections (143(1), 200A, 206CB).
  • Clause 289: Refers to sections 270 and 399, which are presumably the corresponding provisions in the new Bill. The principle remains the same: system-generated intimations are deemed notices of demand.
  • Implication: The shift in section references reflects legislative modernization but does not materially alter the substantive effect of the provision.

3. Special Provisions for Start-up Employees

  • Section 156(2): The deferment period is forty-eight months (four years) from the end of the relevant assessment year, with alternative triggers being sale of the security/share or cessation of employment. The eligible start-up is defined u/s 80-IAC.
  • Clause 289(3): The deferment period is extended to sixty months (five years) from the end of the relevant tax year. The eligible start-up is defined u/s 140 of the new Bill.
  • Key Differences:
    • Deferment Period: The 2025 Bill increases the deferment period by 12 months, providing greater relief to start-up employees. This reflects a policy shift towards further supporting start-up ecosystems and recognizing the longer gestation periods for liquidity events in start-ups.
    • Terminology: The 2025 Bill uses "tax year" and references its own start-up definition (section 140), while the 1961 Act uses "assessment year" and section 80-IAC. This is primarily a modernization and harmonization of terminology.
    • Nature of Income: Both provisions refer to income in the nature of specified securities or sweat equity shares, but the 2025 Bill references section 17(1)(d), while the 1961 Act references section 17(2)(vi). This reflects the new Bill's reorganization of perquisite provisions.

4. Administrative and Compliance Implications

  • Uniformity and Clarity: Both provisions ensure that taxpayers are clearly informed of their liabilities and the timeframes for payment.
  • Facilitating Automation: The deeming provisions for system-generated intimations facilitate automated and technology-driven tax administration.
  • Support for Start-ups: The extension of the deferment period in the 2025 Bill is a significant pro-taxpayer reform, likely to be welcomed by start-up employees and the broader start-up ecosystem.

5. Potential Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation

  • Definition of "Order": The term "order" is not specifically defined in either provision, but judicial interpretation generally includes all forms of assessment or determination of liability.
  • Service of Notice: The provisions are silent on the mode of service, which is typically governed by procedural rules. In practice, electronic service is increasingly becoming the norm.
  • Interaction with Recovery Provisions: The notice of demand is a prerequisite for invoking recovery mechanisms under the Act. Any defect in the notice may vitiate subsequent recovery proceedings.

Practical Implications

For Taxpayers

  • Awareness and Compliance: Taxpayers must carefully review notices of demand and understand the basis and quantum of liability. The extended deferment for start-up employees allows for better financial planning.
  • Remedies: If the taxpayer disputes the liability, the notice of demand serves as the starting point for appeals or rectification proceedings.

For Tax Authorities

  • Administrative Efficiency: The provisions allow for uniform, system-driven issuance of notices, reducing manual errors and expediting the recovery process.
  • Legal Safeguard: Proper issuance of notice of demand is a legal safeguard, ensuring that recovery actions are not challenged on procedural grounds.

For Start-up Ecosystem

  • Employee Retention and Incentivization: The extended deferment period in the 2025 Bill is likely to enhance the attractiveness of ESOPs and sweat equity as compensation tools.
  • Liquidity Management: Employees can defer tax payments until a liquidity event, reducing the financial burden and aligning tax outflows with actual cash inflows.

Conclusion

Clause 289 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 serve as foundational pillars for the administration and enforcement of tax liabilities. While the core principles remain unchanged-ensuring due process, transparency, and administrative efficiency-the 2025 Bill introduces significant enhancements, particularly for start-up employees. The extension of the deferment period for tax payment on ESOPs and sweat equity reflects a nuanced understanding of the start-up ecosystem's needs and is likely to have a positive impact on talent retention and innovation. The modernization of terminology and alignment with technological advancements further strengthen the effectiveness of the notice of demand mechanism.

Going forward, continued refinement of procedural aspects, including electronic service and integration with digital platforms, will further enhance the efficacy of these provisions. Judicial interpretation will remain crucial in resolving any ambiguities and ensuring that taxpayer rights are upheld.


Full Text:

Clause 289 Notice of demand.

Topics

Acts Income Tax