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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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.
    Act RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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 RulesBills
    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.

    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 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

      ActsIncome Tax