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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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 229 "Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets." 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 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 229 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the manner of computing depreciation and treatment of capital gains for assets under the tonnage tax scheme applicable to shipping companies. It defines procedures for splitting written down value (WDV) between qualifying ships and non-qualifying ships, treatment where assets move between businesses, and treatment of capital gains on transfers. The provision affects taxpayers in the shipping industry and the tax department; effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 229 sits within the Part addressing special provisions relating to income of shipping companies and operates in conjunction with section 230(1)(d) (referred to for depreciation computation). The clause governs (a) computation of depreciation for the first tax year of the tonnage tax scheme, (b) allocation of WDV between qualifying and non-qualifying ships, (c) creation of separate blocks of qualifying assets, (d) adjustment when assets change use between tonnage tax business and other business, (e) allocation of depreciation for part-year use, and (f) treatment of capital gains on transfer of qualifying assets with reference to sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for computation. Definitions provided in the clause: "book written down value" means written down value as per books of accounts; "written down value" means written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax. The clause does not otherwise define "tonnage tax business," "qualifying ship," or other terms within this text. Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 229(1) mandates that for computing depreciation u/s 230(1)(d), the first-year depreciation for the tonnage tax scheme shall be computed on the WDV of qualifying ships determined under sub-section (2).
      • Clause 229(2) prescribes an apportionment formula: the WDV (A) of the existing block of assets (ships) as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year is to be divided between qualifying assets (D) and other assets (E) in proportion to the book WDV of qualifying assets (B) and other assets (C) as on the last day of the preceding tax year, via D = A x B / (B+C) and E = A x C / (B+C).
      • Clause 229(3) states that the block of qualifying assets as determined under sub-section (2) shall constitute a separate block of assets for the purposes of the Part (i.e., for depreciation rules).
      • Clause 229(4) addresses movements: (a) where a qualifying asset begins to be used for non-tonnage tax business, an appropriate portion of WDV is transferred from the qualifying block to the other block by A = B x C / D (with variables defined in the sub-clause); (b) conversely, where an other asset begins to be used for the tonnage tax business, an apportioned value is moved from the other block to the qualifying block by E = F x G / I (variables defined).
      • Clause 229(5) requires allocation of depreciation for assets changing use during a tax year in proportion to days of use in each business.
      • Clause 229(6) declares that depreciation on the newly created blocks shall be allowed as if the WDV referred in sub-section (2) had been brought forward from the preceding tax year.
      • Clause 229(7) supplies two definitions: "book written down value" and "written down value" (as described above).
      • Clause 229(8)-(9) provide that profits/gains on transfer of qualifying assets are chargeable u/ss 67 and 74 and calculated u/ss 67-81; for that purpose section 74 shall operate as if "written down value of the block of assets" were replaced by "written down value of the block of qualifying assets." Clause 229(10) clarifies "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" is as computed under sub-section (2).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts an allocation-by-proportion approach: the book WDV split (B and C) as at the last day of the preceding year governs apportionment of the existing fiscal WDV (A) to qualifying and other blocks. Legislative purpose, as discernible from the text, is to align tax depreciation in the first tonnage tax year with accounting distinctions between qualifying and other ships, while preserving continuity for tax WDV by deeming the apportioned WDV had been brought forward. The declared substitution for section 74 ensures capital gains computations reflect the qualifying block's WDV rather than the overall block. The clause indicates an intent to prevent mismatch between book and tax positions when ships move between business uses by prescribing proportional transfers and day-count allocation. No extrinsic legislative history or policy rationale beyond these textual mechanisms is provided. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, exemptions, thresholds, or exceptions are included beyond the mechanics for allocation and transfer on change of use, and the day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for part-year use. Not stated in the document: any caps, transitional time limits beyond "first tax year," or special treatment for leased vessels, second-hand ships, or cross-border issues.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (illustrative application consistent with the text): A block of ships has book WDV B = 60 and C = 40 as at preceding year-end; tax WDV A = 100. Then D = 100 x 60/(60+40) = 60 and E = 100 x 40/(60+40) = 40; qualifying and other blocks are created with those tax WDVs.
      • Example 2 (change of use): Within the tax year, a qualifying ship with book WDV C (as described in sub-clause) begins non-tonnage use; the appropriate portion to move to other block is calculated as A = B x C / D (per variables defined in the clause) and depreciation for that tax year on the asset is allocated by days used for each business.
      • Example 3 (capital gains): On disposal of a qualifying asset, capital gains are taxed u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if reference were to the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" computed under sub-section (2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 230(1)(d) for depreciation computation, and with sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for capital gains charge and computation. No mention is made of specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that further elucidate implementation. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to definitions elsewhere in the Act (e.g., definition of "tonnage tax scheme" or "qualifying ship") or to accounting standards.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope language: The Act (Document 1) expressly refers to "ships or inland vessels" in sub-section (2); the Bill (Document 2) refers only to "ships" (with "inland vessels" absent).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of inland vessels in the enacted text broadens coverage to inland shipping operators who would not clearly have been covered under the Bill's language.
      • Temporal reference for A in sub-section (2): The Bill (Document 2) defines A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year." The Act (Document 1) describes A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships or inland vessel, as the case may be, as on the first day of the tax year."
        • Practical impact: The change of reference date from "last day of the immediately preceding tax year" to "first day of the tax year" (and harmonising the asset description with inland vessels) alters the base value used in allocation; administratively this can affect numeric allocation of WDV between qualifying and other blocks and therefore depreciation in the first tonnage-tax year.
      • Definitions: The Bill (Document 2) includes two defined terms in sub-section (7): (a) "book written down value" and (b) "written down value" (explicitly defined as written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax). The Act (Document 1) contains only a definition for "book written down value" in sub-section (7).
        • Practical impact: Omission of the express statutory definition of "written down value" in the enacted section could leave a textual lacuna; however, administrative practice or other statutory definitions elsewhere may supply that meaning. Absent an express definition here, taxpayers and revenue may engage different interpretive approaches to the term when applying the allocation formula.
      • Wording concerning brought-forward written down value: The Bill (Document 2) uses clarifying language - "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that..." - in sub-section (6). The Act (Document 1) frames the same rule without the "removal of doubts" preamble.
        • Practical impact: The substantive effect appears the same (treating the created blocks as if WDV were brought forward), but the Bill's declaratory phrase emphasises intent to remove ambiguity; its omission from the Act is stylistic and arguably does not change legal effect.
      • Formula presentation and labelling: Both texts supply proportionate allocation formulas for initial division and for movements between qualifying and other assets. The Act's printed formulas in the supplied extraction show slight formatting differences and consistent broader reference to "ships or inland vessels."
        • Practical impact: No substantive change to mathematical approach is evident, but the change in A's reference date (noted above) may change numerical results.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor variances in phrasing (e.g., passive/active forms) and punctuation occur.
        • Practical impact: Generally drafting-level, except where temporal/reference changes noted above which can influence computation and coverage.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear book WDV schedules at the immediately preceding year-end to apply the proportional split; errors in computing B and C or in locating the correct A date will affect first-year depreciation and subsequent tax positions. The clause creates risk around valuation timing and the derivation of "written down value" versus "book written down value" (both defined in the clause), so consistency between accounting records and tax computations is essential.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implicitly requires contemporaneous books of account reflecting book WDV by asset, schedules evidencing the last day of preceding tax year book WDV, documentation of dates assets change business use, and day-count records for apportionment of depreciation per sub-section (5). For capital gains, records supporting the substituted WDV of the qualifying block u/s 74 application are necessary.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 229 prescribes proportional allocation of tax WDV between qualifying and other ships using book WDV proportions as at preceding year-end and creates separate qualifying blocks for depreciation.
      • Assets changing use require proportional transfer of WDV between blocks using the clause's formulas and day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for the year of change.
      • Capital gains on disposals of qualifying assets are charged u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if references were to WDV of the qualifying block computed under sub-section (2).
      • The clause explicitly defines "book written down value" and "written down value" for purposes of computation.
      • Taxpayers must retain precise asset-level book WDV records and date records to apply the formulas and to justify tax computations on audit.

      Full Text:

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax