Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of section 231 "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." 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 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity." It prescribes the procedure, timelines and consequences for a qualifying company to opt into or exit the tonnage tax regime for shipping companies. The provision primarily affects shipping companies that qualify for the tonnage tax scheme, Units of an International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) that have claimed section 147 deductions, and tax administrators (Joint Commissioners). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 231 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) in the Part dealing with "Special provisions relating to income of shipping companies." The clause governs (i) the mode of application to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, (ii) the timeframe for application, (iii) administrative processing by the Joint Commissioner, (iv) duration and renewal of the option, and (v) circumstances under which the option ceases and consequential computation of profits. The text does not provide standalone definitions; terms such as "qualifying company," "tonnage tax scheme," "tax year," or references to sections 232, 234 and 147 are used without definition in this clause. Any definitional clarification is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 231 sets out the following regime elements:

      • Method of opting: A qualifying company may opt for the tonnage tax scheme by making an application to the Joint Commissioner having jurisdiction over the company, "in the form and manner, as prescribed" (sub-section (1)).
      • Time for initial application: Application must be made within three months of incorporation or within three months of the date the company becomes a qualifying company for the first time (sub-section (2)).
      • IFSC unit-specific rule: A Unit of an International Financial Services Centre that has availed deduction u/s 147 may apply within three months from the date on which such deduction ceases (sub-section (3)).
      • Administrative processing: On receipt of an application, the Joint Commissioner may call for information/documents, and after satisfying eligibility shall pass a written order either approving or refusing the option; a copy of the order is to be sent to the applicant (sub-section (4)).
      • Opportunity to be heard: No refusal under sub-section (4)(b) shall be passed without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard (sub-section (5)).
      • Time limit for decision: Every order under sub-section (4) must be passed before expiry of three months from the end of the quarter in which the application was received (sub-section (6)).
      • Commencement of applicability: Where approval is granted, the provisions of this Part shall apply from the tax year in which the option is exercised (sub-section (7)).
      • Duration: An approved option remains in force for ten years from the date it is exercised and shall be taken into account from the tax year in which it is exercised (sub-section (8)).
      • Ceasing events: The option ceases from the tax year in which any of the following occurs: (a) the company ceases to be a qualifying company; (b) default in complying with provisions contained in section 232(1) to (20); (c) exclusion u/s 234; (d) company furnishes to the Assessing Officer a written declaration that the provisions of this Part may not be made applicable to it. Upon cessation, profits and gains from operating qualifying ships shall be computed as per other provisions of the Act (sub-section (9)).
      • Renewal window: An approved option may be renewed within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceases to have effect (sub-section (10)).
      • Application of procedural provisions to renewals: The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal of the option in the same manner as they apply in relation to the approval of the option (sub-section (11)).
      • Prohibition on re-entry for certain companies: A qualifying company which (a) on its own opts out; or (b) defaults in complying with sections 232(1)-(20); or (c) whose option has been excluded under an order made u/s 234(4), shall not be eligible to opt for the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from the date of opting out, default or order (sub-section (12)).

      Interpretation

      The clause provides a procedural and temporal framework for entry into and exit from the tonnage tax regime. The requirement of filing an application "in the form and manner, as prescribed" signals delegated rulemaking for formats and procedural particulars. The provision makes eligibility determinations administrative (Joint Commissioner) and subject to procedural fairness (opportunity to be heard). The statutory language establishes fixed windows for initial election (three months) and for renewal (within one year from end of tax year in which option ceased). The ten-year minimum period for the option's operation once exercised is expressly stated. Legislative intent as expressed: to create a structured, time-bound mechanism for administering the tonnage tax option and to restrict re-entry after voluntary exit, default or exclusion. No broader policy rationale or legislative history is stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      There are no express provisos beyond the listed ceasing events under sub-section (9) and the ten-year bar to re-entry under sub-section (12). The clause does not state any exemptions, transitional arrangements or special treatments other than the IFSC unit rule in sub-section (3). Any additional exceptions or carve-outs are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (initial election): A qualifying company incorporated on 1 January may apply to opt for the tonnage tax scheme within three months of incorporation-i.e., by 31 March of the same year-by submitting the prescribed application to the Joint Commissioner. (This is a direct reading of sub-section (2).)
      • Example 2 (renewal): If a company's approved option ceases with the tax year ending 31 March 2030, it may seek renewal within one year from 31 March 2030, i.e., by 31 March 2031, with the renewal application processed under sub-sections (1)-(10). (Direct application of sub-section (10) and (11).)
      • Example 3 (ten-year bar): A company that voluntarily opts out on 1 April 2025 will not be eligible to opt back into the tonnage tax scheme for ten years from that date-i.e., until 2 April 2035 (sub-section (12)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-refers to sections 147, 232 and 234. It makes the tonnage tax option contingent on compliance with section 232 provisions and subject to exclusion u/s 234; the IFSC drafting ties the exercise of the option to the cessation of section 147 deduction. Specific rules, notifications or forms are to be prescribed (delegated legislation). No rules, notifications or circulars are reproduced in the clause; any detailed procedural provisions are Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must monitor timelines closely-three-month window for initial election and one-year window for renewal. Failure to comply with sections 232(1)-(20) triggers cessation and activates a ten-year bar on re-entry. Administrative decisions are time-limited (decision within three months from quarter-end), but applicants must be prepared to produce supporting documents on request. The clause imposes a procedural bar for re-entry after exit, which is a significant compliance consequence.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Companies should retain incorporation records, documents evidencing qualifying-company status, records concerning section 147 deductions for IFSC units, and evidence of compliance with section 232 requirements for the entire ten-year duration. Copies of all applications, communications and the Joint Commissioner's order should be maintained to evidence the dates of exercise, cessation and any renewals.

      Key Takeaways

      • The clause prescribes a formal, time-bound application mechanism to opt into the tonnage tax scheme, administered by the Joint Commissioner.
      • Initial election must be made within three months of incorporation or first qualification; IFSC units have a similar three-month window tied to cessation of section 147 deduction.
      • Approval or refusal must be communicated in writing, and refusal requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard; decisions must be made within a statutorily prescribed period (three months from quarter-end).
      • An approved option runs for ten years from exercise and applies from the tax year of election; renewal is possible within one year from the end of the tax year in which the option ceased.
      • Cessation events are enumerated (loss of qualification, default u/s 232, exclusion u/s 234, or a written declaration withdrawing applicability), and cessation leads to computation under other Act provisions.
      • Voluntary opt-out, default, or exclusion triggers a ten-year ineligibility period to opt into the tonnage scheme again.
      • Details on prescribed forms, definitions of "qualifying company" and related interpretive guidance are Not stated in the document and remain subject to secondary rules or further statutory text.

      Differences between Clause 231 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) and Section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      Two drafting differences are apparent from the provided texts:

      • Reference to sub-sections in provision on renewals: In the Bill (Clause 231, Old Version) sub-section (11) provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (10) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." whereas the enacted Section 231 in the Income-tax Act, 2025 provides that "The provisions of sub-sections (1) to (9) shall apply in relation to a renewal..." (i.e., the Act excludes sub-section (10) from the list).
        • Practical impact: This narrowing in the enacted text removes sub-section (10) (the explicit renewal window provision) from the list of provisions that apply "in the same manner" when processing renewals. The practical effect is that the renewal procedure is to be governed by the substantive procedural and eligibility provisions (1)-(9) but not by sub-section (10) itself, which could be interpreted to avoid circular application of the renewal-window provision to renewals. The Bill's version would have expressly made the renewal-window provision part of the procedural package that governs renewals; the Act's change appears to isolate the renewal window (sub-section (10)) as a standalone rule rather than a rule that is to be reapplied by reference. The document does not explicate legislative intent; further interpretation is Not stated in the document.
      • Minor drafting variance: Sub-section (1) in the Bill says "in the form and manner, as prescribed," while the Act version uses "in the form and manner, as may be prescribed." Practical impact: This is a marginal drafting or stylistic change with no obvious substantive difference in the obligation to follow prescribed forms and manners; the document does not state any intended change in delegated power.

      Full Text:

      Section 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax