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 ✕
🔎 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.
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

Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Understanding Advance Tax Thresholds : Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

30 June, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Clause 404 Conditions of liability to pay advance tax.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 both outline the foundational statutory framework governing the liability to pay advance tax in India. These provisions are central to the administration of direct taxation, ensuring the timely collection of revenue by the State and promoting voluntary compliance among taxpayers. The evolution of these provisions reflects the legislature's intent to streamline tax collection, adapt to changing economic realities, and address administrative challenges.

This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, including its objectives, operative mechanics, and practical implications. It further undertakes a detailed comparative analysis with Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, highlighting similarities, differences, and the broader legislative context. The discussion also considers the historical evolution of advance tax liability provisions, policy underpinnings, and the operational impact on taxpayers and tax administration.

Objective and Purpose

The core objective of advance tax provisions is to ensure a steady inflow of revenue to the government exchequer throughout the financial year, rather than concentrating tax collections at the end of the assessment year. This system mitigates the risk of tax evasion, reduces the burden of lump-sum payments on taxpayers, and aligns tax payments with the earning cycle of assessees.

Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, like its predecessor Section 208, seeks to operationalize this policy by:

  • Identifying the threshold for advance tax liability;
  • Defining the quantum of tax that triggers the advance tax payment obligation;
  • Ensuring that the tax is paid during the year in which income is earned, thereby improving cash flows for the government and reducing compliance pressures during the annual return filing season.

The legislative history of Section 208 demonstrates periodic adjustments in the threshold amount, reflecting inflationary trends, administrative convenience, and efforts to broaden or rationalize the tax base. The threshold was originally set at a lower level and has been periodically revised upwards, balancing revenue considerations with the need to avoid imposing undue compliance burdens on small taxpayers.

Detailed Analysis of Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

Text of Clause 404

"Advance tax shall be payable by the assessee during a tax year, where the amount of such tax during that year, as computed under this Part, is ten thousand rupees or more."

Key Elements of Clause 404

  1. Liability to Pay Advance Tax:
    The clause mandates that an assessee is liable to pay advance tax if the computed tax liability for the year equals or exceeds ten thousand rupees. The obligation is prospective and applies during the relevant tax year.
  2. Computation of Advance Tax:
    The computation is to be made "under this Part," referring to the relevant provisions in the Bill that specify the manner of ascertaining advance tax liability. This includes considering eligible deductions, exemptions, and set-offs.
  3. Threshold Amount:
    The threshold of ten thousand rupees serves as a filter, exempting assessees with negligible tax liability from the procedural requirements of advance tax.
  4. Timing:
    The phrase "during a tax year" clarifies that the liability arises in the year in which income is earned and not retrospectively.

Interpretation and Potential Issues

Clause 404 is drafted in clear and unambiguous terms, reflecting the legislature's intent to maintain simplicity and administrative efficiency. However, certain interpretative aspects merit attention:

  • Definition of 'Tax Year': The Bill refers to the "tax year," which should be defined elsewhere in the legislation. In the context of Indian tax law, this typically corresponds to the financial year (April 1 to March 31).
  • Computation Mechanism: The clause relies on computations "under this Part." The precise methodology, including treatment of rebates, credits, and carry-forward losses, must be consistent with other provisions of the Bill.
  • Applicability Across Taxpayer Categories: The provision is general and applies to all assessees, unless carve-outs are provided elsewhere (e.g., for senior citizens not having business income, as in the current law).

Ambiguities and Potential for Judicial Interpretation

While Clause 404 is succinct, potential ambiguities could arise regarding:

  • The treatment of fluctuating income streams or uncertain income during the year;
  • Interaction with provisions granting exemptions or special status to certain classes of taxpayers;
  • Whether the threshold is to be applied before or after adjusting for tax deducted at source (TDS) or other credits.

Such issues may require clarificatory rules or administrative guidance to prevent disputes and ensure uniform application.

Practical Implications

Impact on Taxpayers

  • Compliance Burden: Taxpayers whose estimated tax liability exceeds ten thousand rupees must comply with advance tax payment schedules, including estimating income, computing tax, and making timely payments.
  • Cash Flow Management: The provision necessitates planning for periodic outflows, which can be particularly significant for businesses and professionals with variable incomes.
  • Penalties for Non-Compliance: Failure to pay advance tax as required may attract interest and penalty provisions, increasing the effective tax burden and exposing taxpayers to administrative action.

Impact on Tax Administration

  • Revenue Streamlining: Advance tax payments improve the government's cash flow and reduce end-of-year revenue volatility.
  • Administrative Efficiency: By filtering out low-liability taxpayers, the threshold reduces the volume of small-value transactions, allowing tax authorities to focus on significant cases.

Procedural Implications

  • Return Filing and Reconciliation: Advance tax payments are reconciled at the time of filing the annual return, with any excess or shortfall being adjusted or refunded as per statutory provisions.
  • Compliance Monitoring: Tax authorities may use data analytics and information returns to identify cases of underpayment or non-payment of advance tax.

Comparative Analysis with Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Textual Comparison

  • Section 208 (1961 Act):
    "Advance tax shall be payable during a financial year in every case where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, is ten thousand rupees or more."
  • Clause 404 (2025 Bill):
    "Advance tax shall be payable by the assessee during a tax year, where the amount of such tax during that year, as computed under this Part, is ten thousand rupees or more."

Key Similarities

  • Threshold Amount: Both provisions set the advance tax liability threshold at ten thousand rupees, reflecting a policy choice to exclude small taxpayers from the advance tax regime.
  • Trigger Event: Both require payment during the year in which the tax liability arises, aligning tax payments with income accrual.
  • General Applicability: Both are drafted to apply broadly to "the assessee," subject to exceptions elsewhere in the statute.

Key Differences

  • Terminology:
    • Section 208 refers to "financial year," while Clause 404 uses "tax year." The change in terminology may reflect an effort to harmonize definitions or modernize statutory language, but substantively both refer to the same period unless otherwise defined.
    • Section 208 refers to computation "in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter," whereas Clause 404 specifies "under this Part." This may indicate a reorganization or renumbering of the statute in the new Bill.
  • Legislative Context:
    • Section 208 is embedded within a statutory framework that has evolved over decades, with numerous judicial interpretations, administrative circulars, and practical guidance.
    • Clause 404 is part of a new legislative initiative, potentially accompanied by revised definitions, computation mechanisms, or compliance procedures.
  • Historical Amendments:
    • Section 208 has undergone several amendments, with the threshold amount being revised upwards over time. The current threshold of ten thousand rupees was set by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. The historical context indicates responsiveness to economic and administrative changes.
    • Clause 404 carries forward the same threshold, suggesting continuity but also indicating that the legislature considers the existing threshold appropriate for present circumstances.

Substantive and Procedural Parity

Despite minor terminological and organizational differences, the substantive content of Clause 404 is virtually identical to Section 208. The advance tax regime continues to be anchored on the principle that taxpayers with a meaningful tax liability should contribute to the exchequer in advance, based on estimated income.

Potential for Divergence

The adoption of a new legislative framework (the Income Tax Bill, 2025) may lead to changes in definitions, computation methods, or exceptions elsewhere in the statute, which could affect the practical application of Clause 404. For instance, if the definition of "tax year" or "assessee" is altered, or if new exemptions are introduced, the scope of advance tax liability could shift.

Possible Ambiguities and the Need for Clarification

The simplicity of Clause 404 is both its strength and a potential source of ambiguity. Key areas that may require further clarification include:

  • Interaction with Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): Whether the ten thousand rupees threshold is to be computed before or after accounting for TDS credits. Under the current regime, advance tax liability is net of TDS, but this must be expressly clarified in the new framework.
  • Treatment of Senior Citizens: Under the existing law, resident individuals aged 60 years or more, not having income from business or profession, are exempt from advance tax. The new Bill should clarify whether such exemptions continue.
  • Applicability to Non-Residents: The provision applies to all "assessees," but the practical application to non-residents may depend on other provisions defining scope and nexus.

Conclusion

Clause 404 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, faithfully preserves the essential features of Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, maintaining the threshold-based approach to advance tax liability. The provision is designed to ensure timely revenue collection, administrative efficiency, and taxpayer equity. While the drafting is clear and concise, the broader context of the new Bill may introduce definitional or procedural changes that could impact the application of Clause 404.

The comparative analysis reveals a high degree of continuity, with only minor terminological and organizational adjustments. The retention of the ten thousand rupees threshold reflects a considered policy judgment, balancing the need for revenue with the avoidance of undue compliance burdens on small taxpayers. Going forward, administrative guidance and judicial interpretation may be required to address specific ambiguities, particularly in relation to computation methodologies, exemptions, and the interaction with other statutory provisions.


Full Text:

Clause 404 Conditions of liability to pay advance tax.

Topics

Acts Income Tax