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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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 "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others." 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 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) proposes a new, optional tax regime for specified persons (individuals, HUFs, AOPs, BOIs and certain juridical persons) prescribing slab rates and limiting specified exemptions and deductions. It matters to taxpayers choosing between regimes, tax administrators and sectors with deductions under enumerated provisions. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (a provision within the Bill titled "New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others"). The provision aims to create an alternative tax computation regime for persons listed in subsection (1). Coverage: the persons enumerated in subsection (1)(a)-(e). Definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the enumerated categories; references to "this Part" and "Parts A, B" indicate linkage to other Parts of the Bill but the contents of those Parts are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause creates, by default, a tax computation regime whereby income-tax for a tax year "shall" be computed at specified slab rates (nil up to Rs. 4,00,000; 5% up to Rs. 8,00,000; 10% up to Rs. 12,00,000; 15% up to Rs. 16,00,000; 20% up to Rs. 20,00,000; 25% up to Rs. 24,00,000; 30% above Rs. 24,00,000). This applies "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" but subject to Parts A, B and this Part. The default applies unless the person exercises an option as provided in subsection (4). The clause applies to specified persons: individuals; HUFs; AOPs (other than co-operative societies); bodies of individuals; and artificial juridical persons as per section 2(77)(g).

      Interpretation

      The text indicates legislative intent to introduce a simplified, optional regime with specific rate slabs and concomitant limitation on a list of exemptions/deductions. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: (i) the new regime is prima facie overriding of other provisions ("Irrespective of anything contained in this Act") save those Parts; (ii) because the provision enumerates specific exclusions from deductions/exemptions, the clause is to be read as a self-contained regime requiring affirmative opt-in/opt-out mechanics per subsection (4); (iii) specified carve-outs and modifications (e.g., Chapter VIII carve-outs and IFSC special rule) are deliberate limits to the general non-allowance rule. Legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs: subsection (2) prescribes that "total income" for the regime shall be computed without any exemption or deduction under the listed provisions-Schedule III entries (specified table items), sections 144, 19(1) (Table: Sl. No.1), 22(1)(b) (re properties in section 21(6)), 33(8), 48, 49, 45(3)(a)/(b)/(c), 46, 47(1)(a), and "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146." Further, subsection (2)(b) excludes set-off of certain carried forward losses or depreciation attributable to the exclusions, and disallows set-off of house property loss against other heads. Subsection (2)(c) excludes any exemption or deduction for allowances/perquisites provided under any other law. Subsection (3) deems such loss and depreciation as already given full effect-no further deduction later. Opt-in/opt-out rules in subsection (4) provide procedural timings and restrictions (see below). Subsection (5) provides a modification for IFSC units (subject to conditions) - specific temporal scope is included in the Act but in the Bill the provision is limited to certain tax years (see Background & Scope comparison above).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual with total income Rs. 9,00,000 under the new regime would be taxed at 5% on income from Rs.4,00,001-8,00,000 and 10% on Rs.8,00,001-9,00,000. Not stated: interaction with surcharge/cess or rebate-Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An HUF claiming deductions under Schedule III (Table Sl. No. 5) would not be permitted that deduction when computing total income under this regime. Not stated: whether Schedule III entries have alternative relief mechanisms-Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly attempts to sit alongside other provisions by overriding them save where otherwise provided ("Irrespective... but subject to Parts A, B and this Part"), and by listing specific provisions whose exemptions/deductions are not allowed. It further contemplates exceptions (Chapter VIII carve-outs) and special treatment for IFSC units. Interaction with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document. Interaction with Chapter XVII-B (if any) or Parts E: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 202 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)and Practical Impact

      • Scope vis-`a-vis other parts of the Act: Act version (Document 1) qualifies subsection (1) with "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act other than Chapter XVII-B but subject to Parts A, B, E and this Part of this Chapter," whereas the Bill version (Document 2) states "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Act excludes Chapter XVII-B explicitly and adds Part E in the list; the Bill does not refer to Chapter XVII-B or Part E and omits an explicit carve-out. This may change which other provisions (for instance, Chapter XVII-B matters) override or interact with the new regime. Practically, taxpayers and practitioners must check whether Chapter XVII-B or Part E contain provisions intended to operate alongside or override the new regime; the Act clarifies that Chapter XVII-B is not overridden, reducing uncertainty.
      • Drafting differences in subsection (2)(a)(xii): The Act (Document 1) refers to "Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1) and 124(2), or 125(2) or 146;" the Bill (Document 2) refers to "of Chapter VIII other than the provisions of sections 124(1), 125(3) and 146;"
        • Practical impact: Different cross-references to provisions of Chapter VIII are carved out from the exclusions. The Act permits sections 124(1) and 124(2), 125(2) and 146 to remain applicable (i.e., they are exceptions to the general non-allowance rule), while the Bill's exceptions include 124(1), 125(3) and 146 - notably listing 125(3) instead of 125(2). This change affects which specific provisions of Chapter VIII yield deductions/exemptions under the new regime. Practitioners must verify which subsection of section 125 is intended to remain effective; the Act's selection may be broader or narrower depending on content of those subsections (document does not state substantive content of those sections).
      • Modification for IFSC units in subsection (5): Act (Document 1) provides: "the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction u/s 147 shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section." Bill (Document 2) refers to: "In case of a person, having a Unit in the International Financial Services Centre, who has exercised the option under sub-section (4) for any tax year from 2020-21 to 2023-24, the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be modified to the extent that deduction under the said section shall be available to such Unit subject to fulfilment of the conditions contained in that section."
        • Practical impact: The Bill limits the special rule to units which exercised the option for 2020-21 to 2023-24; the Act removes that temporal restriction and frames it generally (no reference to specific tax years). Practically, the Act broadens availability of deduction u/s 147 for IFSC units without the historical exercise requirement, benefiting more IFSC taxpayers; the Bill's limitation would have constrained relief to a subset who opted in that historic window.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation variances: There are small differences in punctuation (commas, full stops) and phrasing ("in such manner as may be prescribed" vs. "in such manner as prescribed" in sub-section (4));
        • Practical impact: Largely drafting, but may influence interpretation of prescription of procedure. The Act's phrasing "in such manner as may be prescribed" follows common statutory formulation permitting subordinate legislation; the Bill's wording is slightly less conventional but substance appears same. Document does not state legislative debate or intent behind wording changes.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Taxpayers must decide to opt out of the default simplified regime by exercising the option in the prescribed manner; those with business/professional income must exercise option on or before the due date for furnishing returns u/s 263(1) (as referenced). Failure to follow the procedure may lock a taxpayer into the default tax computation with limited deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Given the enumerated disallowances and the deeming in subsection (3) that losses/depreciation are fully given effect to, taxpayers should retain documentation showing prior loss/ depreciation origins and any correspondence or filings demonstrating exercise/withdrawal of the option and timing. The document does not specify forms, formats or filing codes-Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause establishes a default simplified tax slab regime for specified persons, with detailed slab rates.
      • The regime disallows a range of specified exemptions and deductions when computing "total income", and restricts set-off of certain losses.
      • Taxpayers can opt out/opt in subject to timing and one-time withdrawal rules; business/profession taxpayers have a specified due date for option exercise.
      • There is a deemed finality for certain losses/depreciation-no further deduction in later years.
      • Special modification exists for IFSC units regarding deduction u/s 147, but the Bill limits this to certain tax years (2020-21 to 2023-24) in the Old Version.
      • Several cross-references to Parts and Chapters indicate this clause's operation is contingent on other Bill provisions; those other provisions are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical compliance requires careful timing and documentation; procedural details and administrative rules are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax