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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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