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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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

      Monetary Limits of Filing of Appeals by Income-tax Authorities : Clause 373 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      7 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 373 Filing of appeal or by income-tax authority.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 373 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and its predecessor, Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, address a crucial aspect of tax administration in India: the regulation of appeals and applications for reference filed by income-tax authorities. The legislative intent behind these provisions is to streamline the appellate process, prevent unnecessary litigation, and provide clarity regarding the consequences of not filing appeals in certain cases. This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 373, elucidates its objectives, interprets its key provisions, and compares it meticulously with Section 268A. The discussion also explores the practical implications for stakeholders and highlights areas of continuity and change in the transition from the 1961 Act to the proposed 2025 regime.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 373 and Section 268A is to empower the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to regulate the filing of appeals by income-tax authorities. This is achieved by allowing the Board to set monetary thresholds or other criteria, thereby preventing the filing of appeals in cases where the tax effect is below a specified limit. The rationale is twofold:

      • To reduce the burden on appellate forums by filtering out cases with low revenue impact.
      • To ensure consistent and efficient tax administration by providing clear guidelines to tax authorities regarding when to pursue appellate remedies.

      Historically, the Indian tax system has witnessed a high volume of litigation, much of which involves relatively minor tax amounts. The policy consideration underpinning these provisions is to strike a balance between the right of the revenue to challenge adverse decisions and the need to avoid clogging the judicial system with inconsequential disputes. Both provisions also address the potential misuse of the non-filing of appeals as a ground for estoppel or acquiescence by assessees.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 373 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Sub-section (1): Empowerment of the Board to Issue Orders, Instructions, or Directions
        This sub-section authorizes the Board to issue orders, instructions, or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals by any income-tax authority under the provisions of the relevant chapter. The language is broad, granting the Board discretion to determine the criteria for filing appeals.
        • Interpretation: The provision recognizes the hierarchy within the tax administration and places the responsibility of policy-making and standard-setting with the CBDT. The phrase "from time to time" indicates that the Board may revise these limits or criteria as circumstances change, such as inflation, changes in tax rates, or policy shifts.
        • Ambiguities: The clause does not specify the methodology for determining monetary limits, leaving it entirely to the Board's discretion. However, this flexibility is necessary, given the dynamic nature of tax administration.
      2. Sub-section (2): Non-filing of Appeal Not a Bar in Other Cases
        This sub-section provides that where an income-tax authority has not filed any appeal on any issue in the case of an assessee for any tax year, pursuant to the Board's orders, it does not preclude the authority from filing an appeal on the same issue in the case of:
        • (a) the same assessee for any other tax year; or
        • (b) any other assessee for the same or any other tax year.
        • Interpretation: The provision ensures that the decision not to appeal in one case (due to monetary limits or other instructions) does not set a binding precedent against the revenue in other cases. This is crucial to prevent assessees from arguing that the non-filing of an appeal in one instance amounts to acceptance or acquiescence by the tax department.
        • Potential Issues: While the intent is clear, there may be practical challenges in ensuring consistency in the department's approach across different years or assessees, especially if the factual matrix is similar but the tax effect differs.
      3. Sub-section (3): No Acquiescence by Non-filing of Appeal
        This sub-section bars an assessee from contending that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue merely because no appeal was filed in any case.
        • Interpretation: The provision seeks to prevent the doctrine of estoppel from being invoked against the revenue in such situations. It clarifies that the non-filing of an appeal (in accordance with the Board's instructions) should not be construed as acceptance of the decision by the department.
        • Legal Principle: This is consistent with the principle that administrative convenience or policy considerations (such as monetary limits) should not create substantive rights in favor of taxpayers in unrelated cases.
      4. Sub-section (4): Tribunal or Court to Have Regard to Board's Orders
        This sub-section mandates that the Appellate Tribunal or Court, while hearing such appeals, shall have regard to the Board's orders, instructions, or directions and the circumstances under which the appeal was filed or not filed.
        • Interpretation: This ensures judicial awareness of the policy framework within which the department operates. It also serves as a safeguard against adverse inferences being drawn solely on the ground of selective filing of appeals.
        • Ambiguities: The phrase "have regard to" is broad and leaves it to judicial discretion as to how much weight to accord to the Board's instructions in individual cases.

      Comparison with Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Section 268A, inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1999, is the statutory predecessor to Clause 373. Both provisions are substantially similar in structure and intent, but there are notable differences and points of continuity.

      1. Scope of Appeals and References
        • Section 268A: Refers to the filing of "appeal or application for reference" by income-tax authorities.
        • Clause 373: Refers only to the filing of "appeal" by income-tax authorities; the phrase "application for reference" is omitted.
        • Analysis: The omission of "application for reference" in Clause 373 reflects the evolution of appellate procedures in Indian tax law. The reference procedure (where questions of law are referred to the High Court) has become largely obsolete after the introduction of direct appeals to the High Court on substantial questions of law. The 2025 Bill thus modernizes the language to align with current procedural realities.
      2. Board's Power to Set Monetary Limits
        • Both provisions empower the Board to fix monetary limits for filing appeals. The language in both is almost identical, ensuring continuity in the policy approach.
      3. Non-filing of Appeals and Preclusion in Other Cases
        • Both provisions clarify that non-filing of an appeal (or application for reference) in one case does not preclude the department from filing in other years or against other assessees on the same issue.
        • The only difference is the reference to "tax year" in Clause 373 versus "assessment year" in Section 268A, reflecting the proposed change in terminology in the new tax code.
      4. No Acquiescence by Non-filing
        • Both provisions explicitly bar the assessee from claiming that the department has acquiesced in a decision merely because no appeal was filed.
        • This is a direct response to judicial pronouncements where taxpayers have attempted to invoke the doctrine of estoppel against the revenue.
      5. Appellate Tribunal or Court to Have Regard to Board's Instructions
        • Both provisions require appellate forums to consider the Board's instructions and the circumstances of filing or non-filing of appeals.
        • This ensures a holistic approach to adjudication, taking into account administrative policies.
      6. Deeming Provision (Section 268A(5))
        • Section 268A(5): Contains a deeming provision that every order, instruction, or direction issued by the Board fixing monetary limits for filing appeals or applications for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1), and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) shall apply accordingly.
        • Clause 373: Does not contain an explicit deeming provision.
        • Analysis: The omission of a deeming provision in Clause 373 could be interpreted as a streamlining or simplification, possibly because the transitional need to validate past instructions is no longer relevant in the new code. Alternatively, it may be an oversight, or the drafters may have considered such a provision unnecessary under the new regime.

      Practical Implications

      • For Income-tax Authorities:
        • The Board retains the power to regulate the filing of appeals, ensuring that departmental resources are focused on cases with substantial revenue implications.
        • Authorities are protected from arguments that non-filing in one case binds them in other cases, preserving their ability to challenge adverse decisions when warranted.
      • For Assessees:
        • Assessees cannot claim that the department's failure to appeal in one case amounts to acceptance of the issue, thus preventing the misuse of administrative decisions as substantive legal precedents.
        • However, assessees may still rely on judicial precedents on the merits of the issue, irrespective of the department's litigation policy.
      • For Appellate Forums:
        • Tribunals and Courts are required to consider the Board's instructions and the factual context of each case, promoting a nuanced approach to adjudication.
        • This may also reduce the incidence of conflicting decisions arising from inconsistent departmental litigation practices.
      • On Compliance and Litigation:
        • The provisions encourage transparency and predictability in departmental litigation, which can lead to more informed compliance by taxpayers.
        • They also contribute to reducing the volume of tax litigation, which is a persistent challenge in the Indian judicial system.

      Potential Issues and Areas for Reform

      • Ambiguity in Judicial Discretion: The requirement for appellate forums to "have regard to" Board instructions is open-ended. Clearer guidelines could help ensure uniformity in judicial approach.
      • Absence of Deeming Provision in Clause 373: The lack of an explicit deeming provision validating past instructions (as in Section 268A(5)) may create transitional ambiguities unless addressed in the general provisions of the new Bill.
      • Review Mechanism: The Board's power is very broad and not subject to any explicit review or oversight. Consideration could be given to periodic parliamentary review or public disclosure of the criteria for setting monetary limits.
      • Consistency in Application: Ensuring that departmental officers apply the Board's instructions uniformly remains a practical challenge, especially in large and decentralized tax administrations.

      Conclusion

      Clause 373 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation and modernization of the principles enshrined in Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It reflects the evolving needs of tax administration by focusing on appeals (and omitting references to obsolete procedures such as applications for reference) and aligns with current judicial and administrative practices. The provision balances the need for efficient tax administration with the rights of assessees, while safeguarding the revenue's ability to contest adverse decisions where appropriate. While the core principles remain unchanged, the new clause streamlines the language and removes transitional provisions that are no longer necessary. The shift from "assessment year" to "tax year" and the omission of the deeming provision are notable changes, but the essential policy objectives-reducing frivolous litigation, ensuring administrative consistency, and preventing the misuse of non-filing as evidence of acquiescence-remain intact. Going forward, further clarity on the application of Board instructions by appellate forums and enhanced transparency in the setting of monetary limits could strengthen the effectiveness of this framework.


      Full Text:

      Clause 373 Filing of appeal or by income-tax authority.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax