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

      Comparison of Section 66 "Interpretation" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      29 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 66 Interpretation.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - interpretative definitions for sections 26-66 dealing with "Profits and gains of business or profession". It matters because these definitions determine the scope and application of multiple substantive provisions in Chapter IV-D; affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business or profession, financial institutions, exchanges, and certain classes of enterprises.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides interpretive definitions for terms used "In sections 26 to 66" of the Bill, dealing with Profits and gains of business or profession. It contains a catalogue of defined expressions - including "agreement", "banking company", "commission or brokerage", "commodity derivative", "commodities transaction tax", "fees for technical services", "housing finance company", "Indian Institute of Technology", "Keyman insurance policy", "limited liability partnership", "long-term finance", "micro enterprise", "mineral oil", "moneys payable", "National Housing Bank", "non-scheduled bank", "paid", "permanent establishment", "plant", "predecessor entity", "primary agricultural credit society", "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank", "professional services", "public company", "public financial institution", "rate of exchange", "recognised commodity exchange", "rent" (for s.35(b)(i)), "royalty", "rural branch", "scientific research", "securities transaction tax", "service" (for s.26(2)(h)), "small enterprise", "speculative transaction", "Specified Banking or Online Mode", "specified derivative transaction", "State Government undertaking", "State Industrial Investment Corporation", "State Financial Corporation", "successor entity", "taxable commodities transaction", "taxable securities transaction", "University" and "work" (for s.35(b)(i)).

      Interpretation

      The text primarily assigns meanings by cross-reference to other statutes (e.g., Banking Regulation Act, Companies Act, Finance Acts) or by descriptive definition. Legislative intent, as discernible from the text, is to standardise terminology used across the chapters and to reduce ambiguity by aligning tax definitions with sectoral statutes and financial legislation. The Bill uses inclusive definitions (e.g., "includes any arrangement... whether or not ... formal or in writing") to capture informal commercial arrangements within tax net. The "specified derivative transaction" and "speculative transaction" definitions use functional tests (electronic trading, contract settlement mechanics) to delineate tax treatment boundaries.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Where the Bill carves out exceptions, it does so within particular definitions. For example, "speculative transaction" excludes (a) specified derivative transactions; (b) certain hedging contracts in the course of manufacturing/merchandising; (c) contracts by dealers/investors in stocks/shares for hedging; and (d) forward-market or stock-exchange member transactions in jobbing/arbitrage. These subclauses act as express carve-outs to prevent ordinary commercial hedging or certain exchange activities from being treated as speculative for tax purposes. No general provisos outside definition-specific qualifiers are present. Other conditional definitions (e.g., "long-term finance" requiring repayment terms of not less than five years) set clear thresholds.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A loan with a repayment schedule of six years qualifies as "long-term finance" for s.32(e) under the Bill, because repayment with interest occurs over a period not less than five years. Not stated in the document whether interest-only or bullet repayments have any effect.

      • Example 2: A contract for forward purchase of raw materials by a manufacturer to hedge price risk is carved out from "speculative transaction" and therefore will not be treated as speculative under the Bill. Not stated in the document how documentation must be maintained to evidence the hedging purpose.

      • Example 3: Trading in derivatives carried out electronically on a recognised commodity exchange and supported by a time-stamped contract note with UCI and PAN would meet the clause's requirement for a "specified derivative transaction". Not stated in the document whether off-exchange bilateral derivatives cleared through a recognised clearing corporation are covered.

      Interplay

      The Bill explicitly cross-references multiple fora of subordinate and other primary legislation - e.g., the Banking Regulation Act, Companies Act, Finance Act(s), the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, SEBI Act and the Depositories Act. This signals intended interoperability: tax definitions are to be interpreted in light of sectoral legislation. The Bill relies on prescribed conditions and notifications (e.g., "recognised commodity exchange" to be notified and to fulfil conditions "as prescribed"). Interaction with rules and notifications is anticipated but the Bill often leaves specifics to delegated law (prescription/notification).

      Differences between Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 66 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Scope language: Section 66 applies "For the purposes of Part D of this Chapter" (i.e., Chapter IV-D), whereas Clause 66 (Old Version) states "In sections 26 to 66," - a broader textual hook in the Bill version. 
        • Practical impact: potential difference in statutory application scope - the Act text narrows the interpretive provisions to Part D explicitly; the Bill text suggests definitions apply across sections 26-66. This narrows or widens reach depending on the cross-references in the surrounding code.
      • Terminology difference - "commodity derivative" vs "commodities transaction": The Bill (Old) at clause (4) defines "commodity derivative" (as in Finance Act) while the Act (Section 66) replaces that item with a clause (4) defining "commodities transaction tax" and retains a later clause for "specified derivative transaction" with a different structure.
        • Practical impact: change in focus from defining the derivative instrument to defining the tax/transaction type; may affect which term governs specific tax computations and interpretive cross-references.
      • National Housing Bank: Clause 66 (Old) contains a specific definition of "National Housing Bank" at clause (15). Section 66 (Act) omits that definition and instead includes "banking company" definition at (2) and "State Financial Corporation" related items; it includes "Keyman insurance policy" and other items.
        • Practical impact: removal of express "National Housing Bank" definition in the enacted provision could affect application of provisions where that entity was singled out in the Bill; reliance would shift to general definitions or other provisions.
      • Micro/small enterprise cross-references: Clause 66 (Old) defines "micro enterprise" as assigned in section 2(h) of the MSME Act and "small enterprise" as in section 2(m). Section 66 (Act) instead states both "micro enterprise" and "small enterprise" shall be "classified as such under the notification in this behalf by the Central Government under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006."
        • Practical impact: Act moves from direct cross-reference to specific statutory subsections to a reference to notification-based classification; this grants greater administrative flexibility and ties the definition to executive notifications rather than to fixed statutory clause numbers.
      • Terminology and numbering changes for derivative/speculative definitions: The Bill's "specified derivative transaction" definition (clause (37)) is structured as three conjunctive requirements (electronic on recognised exchanges; carried out by bank/mutual fund/other through intermediary; supported by time-stamped contract note). The Act's corresponding clause (33) sets out a different two-part formulation and explicitly includes trading in commodity derivatives chargeable to commodities transaction tax or trading in agricultural commodity derivatives subject to specified conditions, and provides alternative carrying-out methods (through stock broker/intermediary or by banks or mutual funds electronically).
        • Practical impact: Act broadens or alters the qualifying modes of specified derivatives and the entities that may carry them out; this may affect the classification of transactions for taxability and compliance (contract-note requirements remain but text differs).
      • Inclusion/omission of successor/predecessor/succession of sole proprietorship: Clause 66 (Old) at predecessor entity includes an extra clause (e) for "sole proprietary concern" succession (70(1)(zf)); Section 66 (Act) predecessor entity omits that (no clause (e) under predecessor) but successor entity in Section 66 includes conversion to LLP etc.
        • Practical impact: divergence as to whether succession of sole proprietorship by a company is captured in predecessor/successor definitions; could affect tax continuity provisions on succession and carry-overs.
      • "Recognised commodity exchange" appears in the Bill (Old) (clause (27)) but is absent from the enacted Section 66.
        • Practical impact: removal may require reliance on other definitions or create ambiguity where the Bill relied on this term; stakeholders in commodity derivatives may need to seek alternative statutory anchors.
      • Placement and wording of "service" for section 26(2)(h): Both texts define "service" with an illustrative list. The list is substantially the same but the Act positions this at clause (29) and the Bill at (33).
        • Practical impact: principally drafting/numbering; substantively similar.
      • Minor reordering and rewording: Many items are present in both texts but with changed numbering, slightly different cross-references (e.g., references to Finance (No. 2) Act numbering), and occasional substitutions (e.g., "commodity derivative" v. "commodities transaction tax").
        • Practical impact: requires careful cross-referencing in tax opinions and compliance documents; numbering changes may affect citations in subordinate rules, circulars, and litigation if not harmonised.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaging in derivative trading or commodity transactions must ensure trading occurs through prescribed channels (recognised exchanges/intermediaries) and maintain time-stamped contract notes with UCI and PAN details to satisfy the "specified derivative transaction" criteria. Failure to satisfy documentary or platform conditions risks reclassification as speculative or non-specified, altering tax treatment.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The Bill emphasises documentary support (time-stamped contract notes, unique client identity numbers, PAN), and in carve-outs (e.g., hedging for manufacturers) suggests that contemporaneous evidence of commercial purpose will be material. Not stated in the document are retention periods or formats for such records; those will be governed by other provisions or rules.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill centralises and aligns tax definitions with sectoral statutes and marketplace practices, using cross-references to existing Acts and requiring prescribed/platform-based conditions for derivative classification.
      • Definitions include inclusive language to capture informal arrangements (e.g., "agreement" includes arrangements not in writing or legally enforceable), broadening tax net for certain anti-avoidance contexts.
      • Specified thresholds and documentary requirements (e.g., repayment period of five years, time-stamped contract notes with UCI and PAN) create clear compliance triggers; absence of these may change tax characterisation.
      • Several terms are left to notification/prescription (e.g., "recognised commodity exchange", "Specified Banking or Online Mode"), indicating reliance on delegated legislation for operational clarity.
      • Carve-outs for legitimate commercial hedging and exchange-related activities reduce the risk of routine business transactions being taxed as speculative, but evidentiary burden is implied.

      Full Text:

      Section 66 Interpretation.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax