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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 239 "Instructions to subordinate authorities." 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 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The two texts under review are Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (as presented in Document 1) and Clause 239 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Both provisions concern the power of the Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to subordinate income-tax authorities. The provisions are largely similar in scope and structure; however, there are minor textual variations between the Act version and the Bill old version that may have practical consequences for scope and administrative practice. Affected parties include the Board, subordinate income-tax authorities, appellate authorities and taxpayers. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: The provision is framed under the heading "Authorities, jurisdiction and functions" and specifically titled "Instructions to subordinate authorities." The text sets out (i) a general power for the Board to issue orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities for proper administration; (ii) express limits on that power vis-`a-vis directing particular outcomes or interfering with appellate discretion; and (iii) specific ancillary powers in sub-section (3) for issuing general or special orders relating to various listed sections, admitting delayed claims in certain cases, and relaxing specified Chapter IV or VIII requirements where genuine hardship is established.

      Definitions/explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The Board may issue orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities for proper administration; such authorities and all persons employed in execution shall observe and follow them (sub-s. (1)).

      Limits: Sub-section (2) imposes two limits. The Board cannot (a) require an income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; and (b) interfere with the discretion of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of appellate functions.

      Particular powers: Sub-section (3) contains three distinct heads:

      • (3)(a) - the Board may issue, for management of assessment and collection work, general or special orders (including by way of relaxation of specified provisions) in respect of any class of incomes or cases, setting guidelines/principles/procedures (not prejudicial to assessees) for subordinate authorities; and such orders may be published/circulated in the prescribed manner in the public interest.
      • (3)(b) - the Board may, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority (other than appellate authorities) to admit an application or claim for exemption, deduction, refund or other relief after statutory time limits and deal with it on merits to avoid genuine hardship.
      • (3)(c) - the Board may, by general or special order for reasons to be specified, relax any requirement in Chapter IV or VIII where an assessee failed to comply with a requirement for claiming deduction, provided (i) the default was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and (ii) the assessee complied with the requirement before completion of assessment for the tax year in which the deduction is claimed. Sub-section (4) requires the Central Government to lay every order issued under sub-s. (3)(c) before each House of Parliament.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent indicated by the text: The provision expresses an intent to centralise administrative guidance and to permit the Board to issue non-case-specific instructions to promote uniformity and efficiency in assessment and collection, while simultaneously protecting adjudicatory independence at the case level (notably appellate discretion) and preserving safeguards for taxpayers against prejudicial instructions. The inclusion of powers to relax procedural/technical requirements and to admit time-barred claims reflects a policy to address genuine hardship and avoid unduly rigid forfeiture of reliefs. The Act also contemplates publication of orders where the Board deems it necessary in the public interest, signalling transparency for general guidance.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The principal exceptions are recorded in sub-section (2) which precludes instructions that would compel a specific outcome in a particular case or interfere with appellate discretion. Sub-section (3)(a)(i) requires that directions/instructions be "not being prejudicial to assessees." Sub-section (3)(c) conditions relaxation on (i) circumstances beyond the assessee's control and (ii) compliance before completion of assessment in the relevant year. Sub-section (4) subjects orders under (3)(c) to parliamentary oversight by laying them before each House.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A Board order setting uniform procedural steps for assessment teams in electronic filing of responses - Not stated in the document as a concrete illustration, but consistent with (3)(a). (If a concrete example is required: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: Permitting admission of a delayed refund claim where a natural calamity prevented timely filing, subject to the Board issuing a general order under (3)(b). Not stated in the document as a case illustration.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: The text cross-refers explicitly to many specific sections (for potential relaxation) and to Chapters IV and VIII (for relaxation of requirements). It also draws a distinction between non-appellate income-tax authorities and appellate authorities (Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals)) - limiting the Board's direct intervention in appellate discretion. Specific Rules/Notifications/Circulars are not enumerated beyond "prescribed manner" for publication. Names or citations of subordinate instruments: Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Act Version and the Bill (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Wording in sub-section (2): Act - "No orders, instructions or directions under sub-section (1) shall be issued so as to-"; Bill - "No orders, instructions or directions under sub-section (1) shall be issued to-".
        • Practical impact: The difference is stylistic. "So as to" arguably emphasises the manner or effect of issuing instructions (i.e., not in such a way as to require a particular outcome), whereas "shall be issued to" reads as a direct prohibition on issuing orders to certain ends. In practice, there is no substantive change to the substantive prohibition identified in (2)(a) and (2)(b). The difference is likely immaterial to legal effect but may carry minor interpretive shading about focus on manner versus recipient/purpose.
      • List of sections in sub-section (3)(a): The Act version lists the sequence "...287, 288, 298, 398(3)..." whereas the Bill old version lists "...287, 298, 398(3)..." (i.e., 288 appears in the Act text but appears omitted in the Bill text as presented).
        • Practical impact: If the omission in the Bill was inadvertent and 288 is intended in the final Act, then the Act version broadens express authority to relax the provisions of section 288. If section 288 imposes distinct obligations or sanctions, explicit inclusion permits the Board to issue relaxations by general/special order in respect of that provision. Conversely, omission would narrow the enumerated list. Whether this difference has substantive effect depends on the content and importance of section 288 (Not stated in the document). If section 288 relates to a material procedural or substantive requirement, inclusion in the relaxation clause could materially affect taxpayers and assessing authorities by permitting central relaxation for classes of cases. The document does not state whether the listing is exhaustive or illustrative ("or otherwise" appears), which also affects the practical reach of the Board's power: the text includes "or otherwise" suggesting non-exclusivity, but the significance of explicitly listing a section is to signal legislative focus on those provisions.
      • Phraseology in sub-section (3)(b): Act - "authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry of the period specified ..." Bill - "authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or a Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief ...".
        • Practical impact: The difference ("claim any" versus "claim for any") is grammatical and does not change the substantive operation: both permit admission of applications or claims for relief after expiry of the statutory period. No substantive practical effect discernible from the text.
      • Stylistic heading and citation labels: Document 1 is presented as "Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025" while Document 2 is "Section 239 of the Income-tax Act, 2025."
        • Practical impact: This reflects legislative stage (Bill vs enacted Act) rather than substantive content differences. The operative legal effect changes on enactment; however, the document does not state dates or legislative history. Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The Board's power to issue guidelines and procedural directions (3)(a) means subordinate authorities must implement central instructions, subject to the limits in sub-s. (2). Taxpayers should be attentive to Board circulars/orders published under (3)(a)(ii) as they may set procedural expectations. Risk arises if a directive crosses the prohibition in sub-s. (2) by effectively directing particular case outcomes; the text prohibits such directions, creating a compliance boundary for the Board and subordinate officers.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where a subordinate authority admits a delayed claim under (3)(b) or relaxes Chapter IV/VIII requirements under (3)(c), the text requires reasons to be specified (for (3)(c)) and conditions to be satisfied. Authorities should record the factual circumstances showing that default was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and that compliance occurred before completion of assessment, to meet the textual conditions. The document does not specify forms or prescribed records. Not stated in the document.
      • Administrative practice: The ability to publish orders for general information (3)(a)(ii) suggests the Board will issue administrative directions periodically; such published orders will guide uniform practice. Where textual differences (e.g., inclusion of section 288) exist between Bill and Act, administrative guidance should clarify the scope of any relaxation power available to the Board. The document does not state any such clarifications. Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision vests the Board with a broad, centralised power to issue administrative orders, instructions and directions to subordinate income-tax authorities for proper administration.
      • Sub-section (2) preserves adjudicatory independence by barring orders that compel a particular assessment outcome or interfere with appellate discretion.
      • Sub-section (3) enables the Board to issue general/special orders including relaxation of specified provisions, admission of time-barred claims to avoid genuine hardship, and relaxation of Chapter IV or VIII requirements subject to conditions and parliamentary oversight for (3)(c) orders.
      • Differences between the Bill old version and the Act are minor and largely stylistic, except for a possible addition of section 288 in the Act's list - which, if deliberate, expands the express list of provisions that may be relaxed.
      • Stakeholders should expect periodic Board orders and should ensure documentary evidence of circumstances beyond control where relief under (3)(b)/(3)(c) is sought; the document does not provide procedural forms or timelines. Not stated in the document.
      • Where a conflict arises between a Board instruction and the prohibitions in sub-section (2), the textual prohibition provides a clear legal boundary; enforcement and interpretation will depend on future administrative practice and judicial review. Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 239 Instructions to subordinate authorities.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax