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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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