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 153 "Deduction for interest on deposits." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      3 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out deductions for interest on deposits for specified categories of assessees (individuals - both non-senior and senior citizens - and Hindu undivided families). It prescribes monetary ceilings and identifies eligible deposit institutions. The provision affects taxpayers (individuals and HUFs) who receive interest on deposits with banks, cooperative banks and Post Offices. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 153 sits within the chapter heading "Deductions in respect of other incomes." It addresses deduction from gross total income where that income includes interest on deposits. The clause identifies assessees eligible for deduction: (a) individuals not being senior citizens, (b) individuals being senior citizens, and (c) Hindu undivided families. Eligible deposit takers are defined by reference to existing regulatory statutes - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for banking companies), cooperative societies engaged in banking (including cooperative land mortgage/development banks), and Post Offices as defined in section 2(k) of the Post Office Act, 2023. The clause contains an internal definition of "time deposits."

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 153(1) establishes that an assessee in the enumerated categories shall be allowed a deduction from gross total income, subject to sub-section (2), where it includes income by way of interest on deposits with specified institutions (banking companies under the Banking Regulation Act, cooperative societies carrying on banking, or Post Offices as defined). Clause 153(2) prescribes the quantum and account-type limitations for the deduction for a tax year:

      • (a) For non-senior individuals and HUFs: whole interest up to a maximum of ten thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, excluding time deposits.
      • (b) For senior citizens: whole interest up to a maximum of fifty thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, including time deposits.

      Clause 153(3) states that where the income referred to in "this section" is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by or on behalf of a firm, association of persons or body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed under the section in respect of such income in computing the total income of any partner/member/individual of such entity. Clause 153(4) defines "time deposits" as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.

      Interpretation

      The text distinguishes assessees by age (senior citizen vs non-senior) and by entity type (individual/HUF). The deduction is account-specific: savings accounts are central to the non-senior/HUF benefit; the senior citizen provision explicitly refers to savings accounts but also states "including time deposits." This combination may require interpretive attention, as "savings account" and "time deposits" are traditionally distinct categories. The legislature's inclusion of "time deposits" within the senior citizen sub-clause signals an intent to extend benefit to interest from fixed-term deposits for senior citizens, but restricting the words "savings account" to both categories may create an internal tension requiring purposive construction. The restriction in sub-section (3) prevents pass-through of the concession to partners/members where the deposit is held by or on behalf of a partnership/AOP/BOI.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No further provisos or carve-outs are provided beyond the account-type limitations, monetary ceilings and the bar on deduction where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs and the definition of time deposits. Specific exceptions for other classes of entities (e.g., companies, trusts) are not provided. Not stated in the document: any specific anti-avoidance measures, procedural compliance, or certificate/documentation requirements for claiming the deduction.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Non-senior individual: A non-senior individual receives interest of Rs. 12,000 in a tax year from a savings account (excluding time deposits). Under Clause 153(2)(a), deduction allowed is the whole of interest up to Rs. 10,000; thus Rs. 10,000 deductible, and Rs. 2,000 remains taxable. (This example is a direct application of the numeric ceiling stated.)
      • Example 2 - Senior citizen: A senior citizen receives Rs. 45,000 interest in the tax year from a five-year fixed deposit held with a bank. Clause 153(2)(b) permits deduction of whole interest up to Rs. 50,000 on deposits in a savings account, "including time deposits." Applying the text, the senior citizen may claim deduction up to Rs. 45,000 (subject to interpretation of "savings account" phrase). The full interest would be deductible, being below the Rs. 50,000 ceiling. (This example follows the provision as worded.)
      • Example 3 - Partner of firm: A partner receives share of interest income from a savings account held by the firm. Clause 153(3) bars deduction in computing the partner's total income in respect of such income. (Direct textual application.)

      Interplay

      The clause references the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Post Office Act, 2023 for institutional definitions. Not stated in the document: any interaction with other specific sections of the Income-tax Code concerning income classification (e.g., treatment of interest as "income from other sources") or rules governing computation of gross total income. Not stated in the document: whether the clause displaces general provisions on deduction elsewhere in the Code or specific filing/conduct requirements in rules or notifications.

      Differences between Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Scope of deductible interest for senior citizens (sub-section (2)(b)): The Act version permits deduction for senior citizens of "the whole of the interest up to a maximum amount of Rs. 50,000 on deposits in any account, including time deposits." The Bill (Old Version) limits the wording to "deposits in a savings account, including time deposits."
        • Practical impact: The Act version is broader-allows senior citizens to claim the deduction on interest from any kind of deposit account (savings or other accounts), whereas the Bill's older text confines the benefit to savings accounts (albeit it still says "including time deposits," creating a textual ambiguity). This change affects the tax benefit available to senior citizens who hold interest-bearing deposits in non-savings accounts (e.g., term accounts held in non-savings category) - under the Act version they clearly receive relief; under the Bill version they may be excluded.
      • Treatment of non-senior individuals and HUFs (sub-section (2)(a)): Both versions provide that individuals (non-senior) and HUFs may claim deduction up to Rs. 10,000 on interest on deposits in a savings account excluding time deposits. Wording differs only in numeric styling ("Rs. 10000" vs. "ten thousand rupees") and punctuation; substantive position appears consistent.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; same monetary ceiling and exclusion of time deposits.
      • Structure and placement of prohibitions when deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs (sub-sections (3) and (4)): The Act separates prohibitions: (3) bars deduction for the non-senior/HUF category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(a) derives from deposits in a savings account held by/for a firm/AOP/BOI; (4) separately bars deduction for the senior citizen category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(b) derives from deposits held by/for such entities. The Bill consolidates the restriction into a single sub-section (3) referring to "where the income referred to in this section is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by, or on behalf of, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed ... in computing the total income of any partner ... member ... or individual ..."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's single provision speaks only of "savings account" deposits and references "this section" generally; it could be interpreted as not addressing the situation where the senior-citizen deduction applies to non-savings accounts (if the Bill's (2)(b) were read to permit non-savings accounts). The Act's split provisions are clearer in mapping the prohibition to each beneficiary category. The Act thus reduces interpretive uncertainty about applicability of the bar for senior citizens when the Act allows deduction on "any account."
      • Definition/placement of "time deposits": The Bill defines "time deposits" in its sub-section (4): "In this section, 'time deposits' means the deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods." The Act places that definition as sub-section (5) with essentially identical wording.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; placement/numbering differs but definition unchanged.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify whether interest originates from an eligible institution and whether the deposit is a "savings account" or a "time deposit" (as defined). The clause differentiates benefits by assessees (non-senior vs senior), so accurate taxpayer classification (seniority) is essential. The textual overlap ("savings account, including time deposits" for senior citizens) could give rise to disputes concerning eligibility of particular deposit types; taxpayers and practitioners should be prepared to justify characterization of accounts. The prohibition in sub-section (3) requires attention where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs to prevent incorrect claims by partners/members.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Retain bank/postal account statements, deposit receipts, account opening documents identifying account type, and evidence of senior citizenship status (if claiming the senior citizen ceiling). Where deposit is held on behalf of a firm/AOP/BOI, retain documentation demonstrating beneficial ownership/arrangement to establish whether the bar in sub-section (3) applies. Not stated in the document: specific documentary threshold or certificate formats.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause targets individuals (non-senior and senior) and HUFs with specified ceilings for deduction on interest from deposits.
      • Non-senior individuals and HUFs: deduction capped at Rs. 10,000 on interest from savings accounts (excluding time deposits).
      • Senior citizens: deduction capped at Rs. 50,000 and the text purports to include time deposits; the phraseology creates potential interpretive ambiguity concerning account types.
      • Deposits held by or on behalf of firms/AOPs/BOIs are expressly excluded from allowing the deduction to partners/members/individuals under this section.
      • "Time deposits" are defined in the clause as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.
      • The clause refers to regulated banking/cooperative/postal institutions; other deposit takers are not within the clause's scope as drafted.
      • Not stated in the document: effective date, procedural mechanics, or interactions with other Code provisions beyond the express references.

      Full Text:

      Section 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax