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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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

      Tax Deduction at Source on Provident Fund Withdrawals : Clause 392(7) of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 192A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      21 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 392(7) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 192A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are pivotal statutory provisions governing the deduction of income-tax at source on payments of accumulated balances from recognised provident funds to employees. These provisions reflect the legislative framework's response to the need for effective tax compliance, particularly concerning lump-sum withdrawals from retirement savings vehicles. The evolution from Section 192A to Clause 392(7) is emblematic of the broader reforms and consolidation efforts in the Indian income tax regime, aimed at enhancing clarity, compliance, and administrative efficiency. The present commentary provides a detailed, item-by-item analysis of Clause 392(7), contrasts each aspect with the existing Section 192A, and explores the underlying policy rationale, practical implications, and potential areas for future legal development.

      Objective and Purpose

      The core objective of both Clause 392(7) and Section 192A is to ensure tax is duly collected at the point of payment of accumulated provident fund balances that are otherwise taxable in the hands of the employee. These provisions are designed to prevent tax evasion or deferment by employees who receive lump-sum withdrawals from recognised provident funds, particularly in situations where the withdrawal does not qualify for exemption due to non-fulfillment of prescribed conditions (such as minimum years of service). From a policy perspective, these provisions serve several purposes:

      • They ensure timely collection of tax revenue at the point of withdrawal, reducing the risk of non-reporting by the taxpayer at the time of filing returns.
      • They promote equity by ensuring that tax-exempt status for provident fund withdrawals is available only to those who comply with the stipulated conditions, thus discouraging premature withdrawals.
      • They streamline the administrative process by placing the obligation to deduct tax at source on the trustees or authorised persons managing the provident fund, rather than relying solely on self-reporting by employees.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 392(7) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Key elements

      1. Applicability and Scope

      • Clause 392(7) applies to trustees of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, or any person authorised under the scheme to make payment of accumulated balances to employees.
      • It is triggered at the time of payment of the accumulated balance due to an employee participating in a recognised provident fund.
      • The provision is applicable only where the accumulated balance is includible in the employee's total income, i.e., where exemption under paragraph 8 of Part A of Schedule XI does not apply (typically, where the withdrawal is made before the minimum qualifying period or other conditions for exemption are not met).

      2. Threshold for Deduction

      • The obligation to deduct tax at source arises only where the aggregate amount of such payment is fifty thousand rupees or more.
      • This threshold ensures that small withdrawals, which may be frequent for low-income employees or in cases of partial withdrawals, are not subject to TDS, thereby reducing administrative burden and hardship for such employees.

      3. Rate of Deduction

      • Income-tax is to be deducted at the rate of 10% on the accumulated balance payable to the employee.
      • This rate is aligned with the standard TDS rate for such payments under existing law, providing continuity and predictability for both deductors and deductees.

      4. Timing of Deduction

      • The deduction is to be made "at the time of payment" of the accumulated balance to the employee, ensuring immediate compliance and collection of tax before the funds are disbursed.

      5. Reference to Schedule XI

      • The reference to paragraph 8 of Part A of Schedule XI is crucial, as it delineates the circumstances under which accumulated balances are exempt from tax (e.g., completion of five years of continuous service, cessation of employment due to ill health, etc.).
      • Where these conditions are not met, the amount becomes taxable and hence subject to TDS under Clause 392(7).

      6. Administrative Responsibility

      • The statutory duty to deduct tax is placed on the trustees or authorised persons, reflecting the principle that those controlling the disbursement of funds are best placed to ensure compliance with TDS requirements.

      Comparison with Section 192A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      A side-by-side comparison reveals the following:

      AspectClause 392(7) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 192A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
      ApplicabilityTrustees or authorised persons under EPF Scheme, 1952; payment of accumulated balance from recognised provident fundTrustees or authorised persons under EPF Scheme, 1952; payment of accumulated balance from recognised provident fund
      Trigger for TDSAccumulated balance includible in total income due to inapplicability of para 8, Part A, Schedule XIAccumulated balance includible in total income due to inapplicability of rule 8, Part A, Fourth Schedule
      ThresholdAggregate payment of Rs. 50,000 or moreAggregate payment of Rs. 50,000 or more (amended from earlier Rs. 30,000)
      Rate of TDS10%10%
      TimingAt the time of paymentAt the time of payment
      Reference to ExemptionPara 8, Part A of Schedule XI (2025 Bill)Rule 8, Part A of Fourth Schedule (1961 Act)
      PAN RequirementNo explicit mentionEarlier required PAN, else TDS at maximum marginal rate (provision omitted w.e.f. 01-04-2023)

      Key Observations from the Comparison

      • Structural Continuity: The substantive requirements remain largely unchanged, reflecting legislative intent to maintain the same compliance framework in the new Bill.
      • Reference Update: The 2025 Bill refers to Schedule XI, while the 1961 Act refers to the Fourth Schedule. This is a technical update aligning with the restructured schedules in the new legislation.
      • PAN Requirement: The earlier requirement u/s 192A for providing PAN (else TDS at maximum marginal rate) has been omitted since April 2023 and is not explicitly carried forward in Clause 392(7). This may be addressed elsewhere in the new Bill or through general TDS provisions.
      • Threshold Consistency: The threshold of Rs. 50,000 is consistent with the recent amendments to Section 192A and reflects sensitivity to inflation and administrative convenience.

      Interpretation and Legal Principles

      1. Principle of Withholding at Source

      • The rationale behind TDS on provident fund withdrawals is rooted in the principle that tax collection at source is more effective and efficient, especially where lump-sum receipts may not be voluntarily reported by the taxpayer.
      • By imposing a statutory obligation on the fund trustees, the law ensures that tax is collected before the funds leave the institutional framework.

      2. Exemption and Taxation Criteria

      • Both provisions are predicated on the exemption rule: withdrawals from recognised provident funds are exempt if certain conditions are satisfied (e.g., minimum service period, cessation due to specified reasons).
      • The TDS mechanism is triggered only where these conditions are not met, and the amount becomes taxable.

      3. Administrative Simplicity and Fairness

      • A fixed threshold and uniform rate of 10% ensure administrative simplicity and reduce the burden on both the deductor and the deductee, while also protecting small-value withdrawals from unnecessary compliance.

      4. Alignment with Broader TDS Framework

      • Clause 392(7) sits within a comprehensive TDS regime under the new Bill, and its design is consistent with the approach taken for other lump-sum payments (e.g., gratuity, superannuation).

      Practical Implications

      1. For Employees

      • Employees making premature withdrawals (i.e., before fulfilling the conditions for exemption) will have TDS at 10% deducted if the withdrawal is Rs. 50,000 or more.
      • Employees must be aware that such TDS is not the final tax liability; actual liability may be higher or lower depending on their total income and applicable tax slab. They may claim a refund or pay additional tax when filing their return.
      • The absence of a PAN-specific provision in Clause 392(7) (as compared to the earlier Section 192A) may reduce the risk of higher TDS for non-furnishing of PAN, but general TDS rules on PAN may still apply elsewhere.

      2. For Trustees and Fund Administrators

      • Trustees are required to deduct TDS at the time of payment and deposit it with the government within the prescribed timelines.
      • They must determine whether the payment qualifies for exemption under Schedule XI and apply TDS only where exemption is not available.
      • They must maintain records and issue TDS certificates to employees, ensuring compliance with reporting requirements.

      3. For Tax Administration

      • The TDS mechanism ensures upfront tax collection and reduces the risk of tax leakage from lump-sum withdrawals.
      • It facilitates data matching and compliance monitoring through TDS returns and information reporting.

      Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation

      1. Determination of Exemption Status

      • The correct application of TDS depends on accurate determination of whether the withdrawal qualifies for exemption. Ambiguities may arise in cases of disputed employment tenure, reasons for cessation, or transfer of balances between funds.

      2. Aggregate Threshold Application

      • The provision refers to the "aggregate amount of such payment." Clarification may be required as to whether this refers to withdrawals in a single transaction or cumulative withdrawals in a financial year.

      3. Treatment of Non-PAN Cases

      • The omission of the PAN-related provision (deduction at maximum marginal rate in absence of PAN) in the new Bill may create uncertainty, unless addressed in the general TDS provisions.

      4. Interplay with Other Retirement Benefits

      • Coordination may be needed where an employee receives multiple retirement benefits (gratuity, superannuation, provident fund) to ensure correct TDS application and avoid double taxation or missed deductions.

      Policy Considerations and Rationale

      1. Preventing Tax Avoidance

      • By taxing premature withdrawals, the law discourages avoidance of tax through early encashment of retirement savings.

      2. Promoting Long-Term Savings

      • The structure of the exemption and TDS rules incentivises employees to retain funds in provident accounts until retirement or until qualifying conditions are met.

      3. Administrative Efficiency

      • Centralising the TDS obligation with trustees reduces the risk of non-compliance and simplifies tax administration.

      Conclusion

      Clause 392(7) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a modernised and largely unchanged continuation of the principles and mechanics established under Section 192A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision is clear in its application, consistent in its rate and threshold, and aligned with the policy objectives of equity, efficiency, and administrative simplicity. The update to the schedule reference is a technical alignment reflecting the new legislative structure. Potential areas for future reform or clarification include explicit treatment of PAN-related TDS rates, clearer guidance on the aggregation of payments for threshold purposes, and enhanced mechanisms for communication between employees and fund administrators regarding exemption eligibility. Overall, the continuity and clarity provided by Clause 392(7) are likely to ensure smooth transition and effective tax compliance in the context of provident fund withdrawals.

       


      Full Text:

      Clause 392 Salary and accumulated balance due to an employee.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax