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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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

      Comparison of Section 29 "Deductions related to employee welfare" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      The documents are two versions of Clause/Section 29 dealing with deductions related to employee welfare in the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. They matter because they govern employer tax deductions for contributions to provident, pension, gratuity and related employee welfare funds and determine when employer- or employee-contributed amounts are deductible. A principal change appears in the treatment and interaction of provisions relating to gratuity provisions (sub-clause (d)) and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions (sub-section (2)). The effective date or decision date: "Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]" indicates enactment, but the text contains no express effective date beyond being part of the Act. (If a detail is missing: Not stated in the document.)

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Provisions are placed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and are framed as Clause/Section 29 of the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. Coverage: deductions allowed to an assessee who is an employer when computing income chargeable u/s 26. The text sets out specific categories of deductible sums (contributions to recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds, pension schemes u/s 124, approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions relating to gratuity, and employee contributions credited to funds). The provision also cross-references section 2(49)(o) and section 37. Definitions or further explanations beyond these references are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision delineates six categories in sub-section (1) of sums that an employer (assessee) may deduct while computing business income u/s 26:

      • (1)(a): Contributions to recognised provident funds or approved superannuation funds subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and conditions specified by the Board where contributions are not made annually as fixed amounts.
      • (1)(b): Contributions to a pension scheme referred to in section 124, limited to 14% of the employee's salary (salary here includes dearness allowance, if terms of employment so provide, but excludes other allowances and perquisites) for each employee in the tax year.
      • (1)(c): Contributions to an approved gratuity fund created by the assessee for exclusive benefit of employees under an irrevocable trust.
      • (1)(d): Irrespective of sub-section (2) (in the As Passed text), any provision made for making contribution towards an approved gratuity fund or for payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year.
      • (1)(e): Employee contributions falling within section 2(49)(o) if credited to the employee's account in the relevant fund by the "due date"; "due date" is defined by reference to statutory, contractual or other obligations and the provisions of section 37 shall not be applied to determine the due date under this clause.

      Sub-section (2) provides a general bar on deductions for "provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason" but - in the As Passed text - is expressly made subject to (1)(d). Sub-section (2)(b) forbids double deduction: if a deduction under (1)(d) has been allowed for a provision, no deduction is allowed on actual payments made from such provision.

      Interpretation

      The As Passed wording indicates a legislative intent to clarify the relationship between provisions for gratuity recognised as deductible and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions. The explicit phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" in (1)(d), together with the rephrasing of (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)," indicates that amounts falling squarely within (1)(d)'s scope are intended to be deductible despite the otherwise general rule disallowing provisions for gratuity. The text also shows an intent to prevent double deduction by disallowing deduction on actual payments when a deduction for the provision was already allowed (sub-section (2)(b)).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly stated in the text:

      • Sub-section (1)(a) is subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually.
      • The 14% cap in (1)(b) on pension scheme contributions and the specification of what constitutes "salary" for that purpose (includes dearness allowance only if the terms of employment so provide; excludes other allowances and perquisites).
      • (1)(e)(ii) defines "due date" by reference to statutory or contractual obligations and excludes reliance on section 37 to determine due date.
      • Sub-section (2)(b) prevents deduction both at the time of allowing a provision under (1)(d) and again on actual payment from that provision.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer credits employee contributions to the recognised provident fund on the date required by statute. Under (1)(e), such credited employee contributions are deductible for the employer provided the crediting is done by the defined "due date." (Details of the statutory due date or record-keeping requirements: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: An employer establishes an approved gratuity fund under an irrevocable trust and makes a provision during the tax year to meet a gratuity payment that has already become payable during that tax year. Under (1)(d) (as enacted), that provision is deductible "irrespective of" the general bar in (2). If the employer later disburses amounts from that provision, sub-section (2)(b) prevents a second deduction on the actual payment.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly interacts with section 2(49)(o) (referred to in (1)(e)) and section 37 (referred to in the definition of "due date" under (1)(e)(ii), where section 37 shall not be applied for determining the due date). No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the text. Any further interplay with other provisions of the Income-tax Act (for example, detailed rules for recognition of funds, or compliance requirements under labour laws) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two versions and practical impact

      Identified textual differences and their practical consequences:

      • Wording of sub-clause (1)(a)/(b)/(c)/(e): Minor editorial differences - "paid by way of contribution towards" (As Passed) vs "contribution paid to" (Old Version).
        • Practical impact: None substantive stated in the document; the differences are stylistic only.
      • Sub-clause (1)(d): As Passed inserts the phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)," before describing the provision allowed (provision made for making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year). In the Old Version the clause appears without that introductory qualification.
      • Sub-section (2)(a): Wording change is significant. Old Version: "For the purposes of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;" As Passed: "(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;"
      • Net practical impact(as shown by the text): In the Old Version there is textual tension - (1)(d) permits "any provision made for the purpose of making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year" while (2)(a) appears to say for the purposes of (1)(d) no deduction shall be allowed for provisions made for gratuity on retirement/termination. The As Passed text resolves that tension by expressly making (1)(d) operate "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" and then qualifying (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)". The effect in the statutory text is to prioritise (1)(d): provisions described in (1)(d) are allowable notwithstanding the general prohibition in (2)(a). Practically, this clarifies that certain provisions - contributions towards an approved gratuity fund and payment of gratuity that has become payable during the tax year - are deductible despite the general rule disallowing deductions for provisions for gratuity on retirement/termination, but the remainder of (2)(a)'s prohibition continues to apply where (1)(d) does not cover the specific provision.
      • Other parts (sub-section (2)(b), sub-section (3), and definitions of "due date" cross-referencing section 37) are materially the same in both texts.
        • Practical impact: No change stated in the document for these clauses.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Employers should ensure that contributions to recognised provident and approved superannuation funds comply with prescribed limits and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually; failure to meet those conditions may jeopardise deductibility (prescribed limits and conditions: Not stated in the document).
      • For pension contributions u/s 124, the 14% ceiling and the specific construction of "salary" (inclusion of dearness allowance only if terms of employment so provide; exclusion of other allowances) create a compliance threshold; documents or employment terms evidencing inclusion of dearness allowance will be material (specific record requirements: Not stated in the document).
      • The As Passed clarification around (1)(d)/(2)(a) reduces ambiguity about whether provisions for gratuity may be deductible: certain provisions and payments that have become payable during the tax year fall within deductible categories despite the general prohibition-employers must track whether a deduction has already been taken on a provision to avoid double deduction on actual payment (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Employers should maintain documentation evidencing (i) recognition/approval status of funds, (ii) prescribed limits and Board conditions satisfaction, (iii) terms of employment showing inclusion/exclusion of dearness allowance, (iv) dates when employee contributions were credited (to establish the "due date"), and (v) accounting entries showing whether a deduction was taken on a provision versus on actual payment. (The specific form or period for retention of records: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 29 lists specific employer-related employee-welfare deductions permissible against business income u/s 26.
      • Main deductible categories: recognised provident funds/approved superannuation funds, pension scheme contributions (subject to 14%), approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions for gratuity and credited employee contributions.
      • The As Passed wording expressly prioritises the deductible provisions in (1)(d) over the general prohibition in sub-section (2), resolving a textual conflict present in the Old Version.
      • Double deduction is prevented: if deduction is allowed for a provision under (1)(d), no deduction is allowed on actual payments from that provision (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Definitions and procedural specifics (prescribed limits, Board-specified conditions, details for determining due date beyond the textual cross-reference) are not set out in the document and will require reference to rules or notifications not contained here.

      Full Text:

      Section 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax