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 228 "Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      6 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 228 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) which sets out the concept of "relevant shipping income" for a tonnage tax company and provides for exclusion of such income from the company's book profit for specified tax computations. It matters to shipping companies electing or eligible for tonnage taxation, tax authorities (Assessing Officers), and advisors in maritime and corporate taxation. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 228 forms part of a Part dealing with special provisions relating to income of shipping companies within the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It defines "relevant shipping income" for a "tonnage tax company", lists core and incidental activities, prescribes limits for incidental income, empowers the Central Government to exclude or limit certain activities by notification, and directs treatment of transfers between tonnage and non-tonnage businesses, allocation of common costs and depreciation, and the exclusion of the relevant shipping book profit or loss from book profit for purposes of section 206. Definitions provided in the Clause include "pooling arrangement" and "contract of affreightment" (see sub-section (4)). Other definitional details and broader contextual definitions (e.g., "tonnage tax company", "qualifying ship", "turnover") are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • The clause defines "relevant shipping income" (sub-section (1)) as the aggregate of:
        • profits from core activities (sub-section (3)); and
        • profits from incidental activities (sub-section (7)).
      • Sub-section (2) places a threshold limitation: incidental incomes in aggregate exceeding 0.25% of turnover from core activities shall be excluded from relevant shipping income and taxed under other provisions of the Act.
        • Core activities (sub-section (3)) comprise:
        • activities from operating qualifying ships; and
      • specified ship-related or inland-vessel-related activities including:
        • (i) shipping contracts - earnings from pooling arrangements and contracts of affreightment; and
        • (ii) specified shipping trades - passenger ship on-board/on-shore activities (fares; food and beverages consumed on-board) and container shipping operations such as slot/space/joint charters, feeder services and container box leasing.
      • Sub-section (4) defines "pooling arrangement" and "contract of affreightment". Sub-section (5) empowers the Central Government to exclude any activity referred to in sub-section 3(b) or prescribe limits to their inclusion in core activities by notification, with parliamentary laying and modification procedure specified in sub-section (6).
      • Sub-section (7) provides that incidental activities are those incidental to the core activities and "as prescribed for the purpose." Sub-section (8) disapplies this Part to income from non-qualifying ships - such income to be computed under other provisions of the Act.
      • Sub-sections (9)-(12) deal with related-party or non-arm's-length transfers between tonnage tax business and other businesses, market value adjustment, Assessing Officer's power to adopt reasonable basis where computation under (9) is exceptionally difficult, and ability to make adjustments where arrangements produce more than ordinary profits because of close connection or other reasons.
      • Sub-section (13) states that any loss in relevant shipping income shall be ignored for the purposes of computing tonnage income under this Part. Sub-sections (14) and (15) require reasonable allocation of common costs and allocation of depreciation for non-exclusive assets respectively. Sub-section (16) provides that the book profit or loss from the relevant shipping activities shall be excluded from the company's book profit for the purposes of section 206.

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a purposive construction typical of sector-specific tax regimes: identify the operational income that is to be governed by tonnage-tax treatment (core and incidental); ring-fence (via the 0.25% threshold) peripheral income to prevent excessive unrelated trading from benefiting; and enable administrative adjustments to counter non-arm's-length transfers or artificial arrangements. The express inclusion of specific shipping trades and the definitional treatment of pooling and affreightment indicate legislative intent to capture customary shipping revenue streams within the tonnage regime. Where precise valuation is impracticable, the Assessing Officer is given discretionary power to adopt a reasonable basis - an administrative safeguard. The provision to exclude book profit/loss from section 206 computations indicates an aim to avoid double-counting or misaligned computation where tonnage rules produce separate tax outcomes.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions explicitly stated:

      • Incidental income exceeding 0.25% of turnover from core activities is excluded from relevant shipping income (sub-section (2)).
      • Income from non-qualifying ships is excluded from this Part and computed under other provisions (sub-section (8)).
      • Losses in relevant shipping income are ignored for tonnage income computation (sub-section (13)).
      • Central Government may exclude or prescribe limits by notification (sub-section (5)); such notifications are subject to parliamentary laying and possible modification/annulment under sub-section (6).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A tonnage tax company earns freight from qualifying ships and incidental revenue from sale of on-board merchandise equal to 0.1% of core turnover. Under the Clause, such incidental revenue remains part of relevant shipping income (since <= 0.25%).
      • Example 2: If incidental revenues aggregate to 0.5% of core turnover, the excess 0.25% is excluded from relevant shipping income and taxed under general provisions (per sub-section (2)).
      • Example 3: A company transfers fuel stored for tonnage business to a non-tonnage business at book value materially below market. Under sub-section (9)-(11), the Assessing Officer will compute relevant shipping income as if the transfer occurred at market value, or adopt a reasonable basis if exceptional difficulties arise.

      Interplay

      Explicit interaction: sub-section (16) links with section 206 (computation/use of book profit). The Clause prescribes that relevant shipping book profit or loss is to be excluded from book profit for section 206 purposes. Other cross-references - for example, to definitions such as "qualifying ship", "tonnage tax company", or procedural rules - are Not stated in the document. References to notifications and parliamentary laying follow standard legislative procedure but do not identify subordinate rules or forms; those are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the Clause: ensuring correct segregation of core vs incidental activities; monitoring incidental income relative to the 0.25% threshold; documenting transfers between tonnage and other business at market value or maintaining supporting valuations to withstand AO scrutiny under sub-section (9)-(11); contemporaneous allocation methods for shared costs and depreciation in mixed-use assets per sub-sections (14)-(15).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: maintain detailed accounts of core activity turnover to calculate the 0.25% threshold; contracts and agreements (pooling arrangements, contracts of affreightment) and terms; market value evidence for inter-business transfers; allocation methodology documentation for common costs and depreciation; and contemporaneous justification where Assessing Officer is required to adopt or review "reasonable basis".

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause defines "relevant shipping income" as profits from enumerated core and incidental shipping activities for tonnage tax purposes.
      • Incidental income exceeding 0.25% of core turnover is excluded from the tonnage tax measure and taxed under general provisions.
      • Core activities specifically include qualifying ship operations and listed ship-related trades (pooling, contracts of affreightment, passenger on-board revenue, container shipping services).
      • Transfers between tonnage and non-tonnage businesses are to be tested against market value; Assessing Officer may adopt reasonable basis where computation is exceptionally difficult.
      • Losses in relevant shipping income are ignored for tonnage income computation; common costs and depreciation for non-exclusive assets must be reasonably allocated.
      • The book profit/loss from relevant shipping activities is expressly to be excluded from the company's book profit for section 206 computations.
      • The Central Government retains power to exclude or limit inclusion of listed activities by notification subject to parliamentary procedure.

      Differences between Clause 228 of the Income-tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Section 228 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Comparison based solely on the provided documents reveals primarily drafting and one substantive cross-reference change:

      • Drafting/wording changes: Minor phrasing differences appear in sub-section (4) introductory wording ("In sub-section..." vs "For the purposes of sub-section...") and in sub-section (7) ("as prescribed for the purpose" vs "as may be prescribed for the purpose"). These are stylistic and do not materially change scope.
      • Substantive cross-reference change: Clause 228 (Bill) sub-section (16) refers to "the purposes of section 206" generally; Section 228 (Act) refers more specifically to "the purposes of section 206(1)(c)".
        • Practical impact: the Act's more specific cross-reference narrows the provision's structural application to a particular sub-clause of section 206 (presumably the clause dealing with a particular computation of book profit). This narrows the operational effect and reduces ambiguity as to which part of section 206 the exclusion applies to. The Bill's broader reference could be read to exclude from multiple or all computations u/s 206; the enacted text confines the exclusion to a specific sub-provision. Any further implications depend on the content of section 206(1)(c), which is Not stated in the document.
      • Other provisions, thresholds, definitions and AO powers remain substantively the same between the two texts provided.

      Practical impact of the differences

      • Operational certainty: The Act's specific reference to section 206(1)(c) provides greater precision on which book-profit computation the exclusion affects; taxpayers and tax authorities will have clearer guidance for compliance and assessment. Exact consequences depend on section 206(1)(c)'s scope (Not stated in the document).
      • Administrative effect: Minor drafting changes do not materially alter Assessing Officer powers or taxpayer obligations under the Clause as presented in the Bill. The main compliance tasks-segregation of incomes, valuation on transfers, allocation of costs-remain required under both texts.

      Full Text:

      Section 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax