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

      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