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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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 201 "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 201 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." It provides an elective concessional tax regime for certain newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies and specifies conditions, computation rules and exclusions. Affected parties: domestic companies engaged in manufacture/production and the tax administration. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The clause is framed as part of an Income Tax Bill, 2025. Statutory hooks referenced within the clause include Parts A, B and this Part of the Chapter (with an express exception for sections 199 and 200), and multiple provisions across the Income-tax enactment (sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapter VIII except sections 146 and 148, section 205(1)(a) to (g), section 116(1), section 205(4), section 205(2), and section 263(1) for due dates). The provision is limited to "a domestic company engaged in business of manufacture or production of any article or thing," and creates an option for such a company to compute income-tax at specified concessional rates subject to enumerated conditions and computation rules set out in sub-sections (2)-(5).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 201 creates an elective special tax computation regime for a domestic company engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The regime operates "irrespective of anything contained in this Act," but is subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part (other than sections 199 and 200). The Table prescribes four tax treatments: (a) 15% on total income except incomes in clauses (b), (c), (d); (b) 22% (without any deduction or allowance) on income that is neither derived from nor incidental to manufacturing/production and for which no specific rate has been provided separately under this Part; (c) 22% on short-term capital gains from transfer of capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable; (d) 30% on income deemed u/s 205(4). Eligibility is conditional on specified criteria in column D: exercise of the option as per sub-section (2); set-up/registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024; total income computation as per sub-section (3); and fulfilment of sub-section (5) and section 205(2).

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a legislative intent to provide an elective concessional tax regime for newly established manufacturing companies, but subject to precise temporal and procedural conditions. The "irrespective of anything contained in this Act" opening indicates a stand-alone/comprehensive computation model, constrained only by specified Parts and sections. The requirement that certain incomes be taxed at fixed percentage rates, and the prohibition in clause (b) on any deduction or allowance for the 22% category, indicate an intent to simplify/compress the tax base for qualifying incomes. The option mechanism and the non-withdrawable nature (sub-section (2)(c)) suggest a durable election once validly made.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions include:

      • Temporal eligibility: set-up and registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024.
      • Computation constraints under sub-section (3): exclusions from deductions (specified sections) and prohibition on set-off of certain losses/unabsorbed depreciation per section 116(1) where attributable to excluded deductions.
      • Option mechanics: must be exercised on or before the due date specified u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return for any tax year; once exercised, it applies to subsequent years and cannot be later withdrawn.
      • Invalidation: failure to fulfil eligibility conditions in any tax year causes invalidation of the option for that year and subsequent years, with application of other Act provisions as if the option had not been exercised.
      • Amalgamation rule: option survives only for the amalgamated company if the conditions in sub-section (1) continue to be satisfied by that company.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic company established on 15 November 2019 that commenced commercial manufacturing on 10 March 2024 and validly exercises the option by the specified due date will compute its manufacturing income at 15% and, if it has non-manufacturing income not covered by specific rates under this Part, such income will be taxed at 22% without deductions, pursuant to the Table. (Facts not beyond the text.)
      • Example 2: If a qualifying company derives short-term capital gains on a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act, such gains will be taxed at 22% as per clause (c). (Directly from the text.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with multiple other sections and Parts: it disapplies general provisions except as noted and requires computation "as per the provisions of sub-section (3)" which cross-references sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapters and specified parts of section 205, and section 116(1). It also refers to section 205(4) for deemed income at the 30% rate and to section 205(2) in eligibility. The option exercise due date is linked to section 263(1). The Bill itself does not include other notifications, rules or circulars; if any such instruments exist, they are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provided provisions and Practical Impact

      Comparison of the two documents (Section 201 - final statute as shown at Document 1, and Clause 201 - Bill old version at Document 2) reveals the following textual differences and their practical impact strictly as can be derived from the text:

      • Reference to Parts of the Chapter: The Bill (Document 2) refers to "Parts A, B and this Part" while the later version (Document 1) refers to "Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The inclusion of Part E in the later text expands the corpus of provisions under which specific rates of tax may be provided or under which interactions must be considered; consequently, the scope of provisions with which the concessional regime must be read may be broader in the later text. From the Bill text alone: the regime, as drafted there, excludes interaction with Part E; Document 1 includes Part E-thereby potentially changing the applicability of certain rates and interactions. (All conclusions are based on the textual difference; no external facts are stated.)
      • Clause (b) scope language: In the Bill (Document 2) clause (b)(ii) limits the 22% treatment to income "in respect of which no specific rate of tax has been provided separately under this Part." The later version (Document 1) instead references "under Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's narrower reference confines the carve-out to this Part only; the later version's wider reference brings within its ambit any specific rates provided in Parts A, B or E. This alters which incomes qualify for the 22% treatment under clause (b) depending on whether specific rates are in Parts A/B/E.
      • Specific cross-references and subsection numbering: The Bill lists "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)" while the later text lists "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)." The Bill cites "Chapter VIII other than sections 146 and 148" (plural) while the later text says "Chapter VIII other than section 146 or 148" (singular/or). The Bill refers to "section 205(1)(a) to (g)" (as a range) whereas the later text uses "sections specified in 205(1)(a) to (g)." The Bill cites "section 116(1)" whereas the later text cites "section 116."
        • Practical impact: These are drafting/precision differences. Where a specific sub-clause is cited in the Bill (e.g., 45(2)(c)), that confines the exclusion to that sub-clause rather than the whole of 45(2). Likewise, citing 116(1) narrows reference to that sub-subsection rather than section 116 as a whole. The practical consequence is interpretive: the Bill's more specific references potentially narrow the exclusions from deduction/set-off; the later text's broader references widen them. Absent other material, the Bill's text would limit the non-allowance of specific deductions to the narrowly enumerated paragraphs, whereas the later text indicates a broader non-allowance.
      • Minor drafting/format differences: Variations in plurality and punctuation (e.g., "such option, once exercised, shall apply to subsequent tax years;" appears same in both) do not change substance.
        • Practical impact: Minimal, limited to clarity and potential interpretive emphasis.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must track the temporal eligibility windows (set-up/registration and commencement dates), adhere to the option exercise deadline linked to section 263(1), and monitor continued fulfilment of conditions annually because a breach invalidates the option prospectively. The prohibition on certain deductions and set-offs requires careful computation and documentation to demonstrate attribution of losses/depreciation to excluded deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the necessity of contemporaneous evidence of incorporation/registration date, date of commencement of manufacturing/production, records establishing the nature of income (manufacturing versus non-manufacturing), allocation studies to show whether losses or depreciation are attributable to excluded deductions, and records evidencing exercise of the option within the prescribed manner and deadline. Specific forms/procedures for exercise are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 201 offers an elective concessional tax computation for newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies with fixed percentage tax rates for categories of income.
      • The option is time-sensitive, irrevocable once exercised, and may be invalidated upon failure to meet conditions in any year.
      • Certain deductions and set-offs are excluded when computing total income for purposes of the regime; precise cross-referenced sections limit allowable deductions.
      • Eligibility is contingent on incorporation/registration and commencement dates; these temporal thresholds are integral to qualification.
      • On amalgamation, the option survives only if the amalgamated company continues to satisfy the enumerated conditions.
      • Interplay with other Parts and sections is extensive; precise statutory cross-references create interpretive points that may require careful statutory construction.
      • Procedures, prescribed manner of exercising the option, and exact forms or rules for implementation are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax