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 37 "Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only" 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 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      This document compares Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) with Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]. Both provisions govern the timing of certain business deductions - making them allowable only on actual payment - and affect taxpayers carrying on business or profession, lenders/financial entities, employers and suppliers (including micro and small enterprises). The enacted version introduces targeted drafting changes and an additional definitional clause; effective date/commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: these provisions operate in the context of computing "income chargeable u/s 26" and interact with section 32(a), section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and section 263(1) (as referenced for due date of filing). The text sets out a non-exhaustive list of categories of sums which are deductible only in the tax year in which they are actually paid. Definitions provided in the text include "specified financial entities" (varying slightly between the versions) and, in the enacted version, an express definitional rule for "the sum payable" in relation to tax/duty/cess etc. The document does not state a legislative intent beyond the text. Not stated in the document: commencement/notification details, legislative debates or policy background beyond the provision itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The provision mandates that specified sums (listed in sub-section (2)) that would otherwise qualify as deductions are allowable only in the tax year in which they are actually paid, irrespective of any contrary provision in the Act, the method of accounting, or the year in which liability was incurred. The enumerated categories include:

      • tax, duty, cess, surcharge or fee levied under any law;
      • employer contributions to provident, superannuation, gratuity or welfare funds;
      • amount payable by an employer in lieu of leave;
      • any sum referred to in section 32(a);
      • interest on loans/advances/borrowings from specified financial entities (differences in wording across versions noted below);
      • amount payable to Indian Railways for use of railway assets;
      • amount payable to micro or small enterprises beyond the time limit u/s 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

      The enacted text adds an express rule (sub-section (3)) allowing certain sums (other than those under clause (g)) to be treated as deductible in the tax year in which liability was incurred if actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for that tax year. Sub-section (5) prevents double deduction where a deduction was already allowed when liability was incurred. Sub-section (6) excludes sums received by the assessee from employees as contributions as covered by section 2(49)(o).

      Interpretation

      The enacted provision clarifies several interpretive points not present in the Bill text. Notably, Section 37 (As Passed) expressly defines for sub-section (2)(a) that "the sum payable" means a sum for which the assessee has incurred liability in the tax year even if it was not payable in that year under relevant law - this clarifies the scope of clause (2)(a) (tax/duty/cess etc.) as to what counts as a "sum payable" for the section. The enacted version expands the language in the interest clause to refer to "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifying phrase "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings," which signals an intent to tie deductibility strictly to the contractual terms governing payment obligations. The enacted definition of "specified financial entities" is more formal and specifies "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government," aligning with an administrative notification route.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs in the text:

      • Sub-section (3) provides an exception for sums (other than clause (g) amounts) paid after the tax year but on or before the due date for filing the return u/s 263(1) - allowing deduction in the earlier year.
      • Sub-section (4) (enacted) treats conversion of interest into a deferred instrument (loan, debenture or other) as not amounting to actual payment.
      • Sub-section (5) bars duplicate deduction where a deduction was already allowed in the year liability arose.
      • Sub-section (6) excludes employee contributions collected by the assessee for funds referred to in section 2(49)(o).

      Not stated in the document: any monetary thresholds, exemptions beyond the listed items, or transitional provisions for existing liabilities at enactment.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company incurs a liability for stamp duty in March (tax year ending 31 March). The stamp duty is not paid until November of the following tax year. Under the enacted section, the duty will be deductible only in the year in which it is actually paid (November year), unless it is paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for the earlier year - in which case sub-section (3) permits deduction in the earlier year. (Hypothetical dates consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: Interest payable under a loan agreement with a scheduled bank is capitalised and converted into a debenture at year-end. Under sub-section (4) of the enacted text, that conversion will not be treated as actual payment and the deduction will not be available unless and until cash payment is made.

      • Example 3: An assessee fails to pay a supplier who is a micro enterprise within the MSMED Act time-limit; the amount paid thereafter falls under clause (g) and is deductible only when actually paid; sub-section (3) explicitly excludes clause (g) from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out.

      Interplay

      The provision explicitly ties into section 26 (computation of income), section 32(a) (capital allowances/depreciation - referred), section 15 of the MSMED Act (timelines for micro/small enterprise payments) and section 263(1) (used only to locate the return-filing due date). Not stated in the document: any cross-reference to accounting standards, tax accounting rules beyond the method-of-accounting override in sub-section (1), or implementing rules/circulars. Interaction with specific sections (e.g., procedural provisions for claims) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Inclusion of "advances" in interest clause (enacted): The Bill referred to "interest on loans or borrowings"; the enacted text expressly includes "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifier "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings."
        • Practical impact: broader capture of financing arrangements (including advances) and a clear linkage to contractual payment provisions - reducing arguments that interest capitalised or documented differently falls outside the provision. Lenders and borrowers must check contracts: if payment is contractually deferred, the deduction waits until actual payment unless allowed by sub-section (3).
      • Addition of definitional clause for clause (2)(a) in enacted text (new sub-section (8)): The enacted section clarifies that for tax/duty/cess etc., "sum payable" includes sums where liability was incurred even if not payable in that year under relevant law.
        • Practical impact: clarifies what liabilities are considered "payable" for the purpose of the section, which reduces uncertainty about whether statutory levies with later payment windows fall within the scope. However, the central rule of actual-payment timing remains; this clause only clarifies liability incidence for clause (a).
      • Refinement of "specified financial entities" wording: The Bill uses "State Finance Corporation" and "notified class" phrasing; enacted text uses "State Financial Corporation" and "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government" and lists "a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank."
        • Practical impact: largely drafting/terminology precision with limited substantive change, but the enacted wording emphasises the Central Government's notification power to specify classes of NBFCs.
      • Expansion and precision of sub-section (4) in enacted text: The enacted clause refers to conversion of "interest on loans or advances or borrowings" into a deferred instrument and states it shall not be deemed actually paid.
        • Practical impact: prevents taxpayers from creating instruments to characterise unpaid interest as "paid" through conversion - the tax consequence is preserved until actual cash payment.
      • Minor drafting differences (tense and phrasing in sub-section (5)): The enacted text is marginally more formal ("when it is paid") than the Bill ("when paid").
        • Practical impact: negligible substantively.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must align accounting and tax positions to actual cash payments for the listed categories. Contracts that permit deferral or conversion of obligations will not give rise to immediate deductions; conversion of interest to debt instruments will not be treated as payment.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should retain contractual documents (loan agreements, payment schedules), proof of payment (bank statements, receipts), employer contribution records, and correspondence with suppliers (notably micro/small suppliers) to substantiate the timing of actual payment. For clause (2)(a) liabilities, documentation proving the year liability was incurred will remain relevant due to the enacted definitional clarity.
      • Payments to micro and small enterprises: Because clause (g) is excluded from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out, delayed payments to MSME suppliers remain deductible only in the year of actual payment - increasing the tax cost of delayed supplier payments relative to some other categories.
      • Contract drafting: Lenders, borrowers and employers should review payment and capitalisation clauses to anticipate tax timing; central government notification powers over classes of NBFCs means market participants should monitor notifications.

      Key Takeaways

      • The enacted Section 37 preserves the core policy: certain deductions are allowable only on actual payment, overriding accounting methods and timing of liability.
      • Enacted text broadens and clarifies the interest clause to expressly cover "advances" and ties deductibility to contractual terms, constraining tax timing planning.
      • A new definitional rule clarifies what counts as a "sum payable" for tax/duty/cess, reducing uncertainty about levy liabilities that are not payable within the year.
      • Conversion of interest into deferred instruments is explicitly not treated as payment; taxpayers cannot convert unpaid interest into other instruments to claim deduction.
      • Payments to micro/small enterprises beyond MSMED timelines remain deductible only when actually paid and are excluded from the limited early-payment allowance under sub-section (3).
      • Administrative implication: monitoring of Central Government notifications (for NBFC classes) and careful contractual drafting will be important to manage timing of deductions.

      Full Text:

      Section 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax