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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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