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 253 "Powers of survey." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      9 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 253 Powers of survey.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document is Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), setting out powers of survey exercisable by income-tax authorities. It matters because it defines entry, inspection, assistance, impounding and related procedural limits affecting taxpayers, assessing authorities and compliance officers. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business/profession/charitable activities, their employees and custodians of records; the issuing or effective date is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 253 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, titled "Powers of survey." Coverage: authorises an income-tax authority to enter places where business/profession/charitable activity is carried on (including non-principal places and any place stated to contain books, cash, stock, valuables or computer systems). The clause addresses entry conditions, timing (business hours or after sunrise/before sunset), powers on entry (inspection, technical assistance, verification of assets/stock, recording statements on oath), impounding/retention of documents, inventory of assets, and enforcement powers (reference to section 246(1)). Definitions provided: "income-tax authority" with an enumerated list and inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax for specified sub-sections. The clause describes special entry for verifying TDS/TCS under Chapter XIX-B and permits certain restricted actions in those instances. It does not provide an effective date in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision authorises entry into premises where business/profession/charitable activities are carried on, within the assigned area or where the authority exercises jurisdiction, or where authorised by another income-tax authority. Upon entry the inspecting authority may require persons present to provide technical/other assistance (including access codes) to inspect books, documents, computer systems, electronic media or virtual digital space; to provide facilities to check or verify assets/stock; and to furnish information relevant to any proceeding under the Act. Entry timing is constrained to business hours for business places, and to after sunrise/before sunset for other places. For verification of TDS/TCS (Chapter XIX-B), the authority may enter during daylight and require access to books, documents, electronic media, computer systems and virtual digital space. Powers on entry include marking identification on documents, making extracts or copies from electronic media/computer systems, recording statements on oath, impounding and retaining documents (with reasons) for specified periods, and making inventories of assets/stock.

      Interpretation

      The Bill reflects an intent to modernise survey powers to expressly reach electronic media and virtual digital space, and to require technical assistance including access codes. The text indicates a legislative purpose to equip tax authorities to access digital records and remote storage when verifying compliance. The presence of timing restrictions and a requirement to record reasons for impounding indicates an intent to balance intrusive powers with procedural safeguards. Reference to section 246(1) for enforcement suggests use of pre-existing coercive mechanisms rather than creation of new penal sanctions within the clause.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The principal limitations are temporal (business hours or daylight), limitation on actions when entering for Chapter XIX-B verification (the authority acting under sub-section (4) shall only undertake actions referred under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b)), and requirement to record reasons before impounding. There is also an implicit limitation that removal of assets/stock from the premises is prohibited ("shall, on no account, remove or cause to be removed from the place... any asset or stock" - Not stated in the document whether this prohibition is absolute or subject to any exception beyond what's written) .

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A shop open for business is visited during business hours; the authority can require staff to provide access to on-premises accounting software and extract relevant records, mark documents, and, after recording reasons, impound ledger printouts for up to fifteen days.
      • Example 2: For a charitable trust's event, after the function the authority may require the organiser to furnish information regarding expenditure and record statements on oath for use in subsequent proceedings.
      • Example 3: In a TDS verification at a corporate office, the authority may require access to electronic media and virtual digital space to confirm deductions/collections, but may only carry out marking/copying of documents and recording of statements during that entry.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes Chapter XIX-B (TDS/TCS) and section 246(1) (for enforcement), indicating interplay with existing assessment and enforcement provisions. There is no textual reference to subordinate rules, guidelines, data-protection statutes, or procedural safeguards beyond the recording of reasons and approval requirements for impounding beyond fifteen days. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to evidence law, privacy law, or specific Board instructions governing access to virtual digital spaces.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope of electronic material: The Bill (Document 2, "Old Version") expressly includes "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space" and, in another sub-clause, "electronic media ... or virtual digital space." The Act version (Document 1, Section 253) uses narrower phrasing: "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's language is broader and expressly captures cloud/virtual data and ancillary material connected with computer systems; the Act text reduces express reach to "information in electronic form or on a computer system," which may narrow or at least create interpretive questions about whether remote/virtual storage and ancillary system material fall within survey powers.
      • Assistance required on entry: Both versions require provision of "necessary technical and other assistance (including access code)." The Bill's clause (1)(i) explicitly refers to "computer system, or any other material connected with such system including virtual digital space," while the Act omits the phrase "any other material connected ... including virtual digital space" and refers instead to "information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's wording gives clearer authority to demand assistance for inspecting connected materials and virtual spaces; the Act may be read as focused on retrievable information rather than the broader system context.
      • Inspection powers under Chapter XIX-B verification (sub-section (4)): The Bill expressly grants access to "access to electronic media or computer system, or virtual digital space" for verifying TDS/TCS compliance. The Act restricts the language to "books of account or other documents, or information in electronic form or on a computer system."
        • Practical impact: Enforcement relating to TDS/TCS may have broader reach under the Bill wording; the Act's phrasing may require interpretive expansion to cover virtual digital spaces.
      • Impounding and retention wording: The Bill states the authority may "impound and retain in custody any books of account or other documents inspected by it, after recording reasons for doing so, for a period-(i) of fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with prior approval." The Act states the authority may "impound after recording reasons for doing so, any books of account or other documents, or any computer system inspected by it, and retain it for a period-(i) up to fifteen days (exclusive of holidays); or (ii) exceeding fifteen days ... with the prior approval."
        • Practical impact: The Act explicitly adds "any computer system" to the list that may be impounded and clarifies retention periods as "up to fifteen days" (versus Bill's "of fifteen days"), arguably the same practical effect but with different drafting emphasis on computer systems in the Act.
      • Restriction on actions under sub-section (4): Both texts state that an income-tax authority acting under sub-section (4) shall undertake only specified actions. The Act (Document 1, sub-section (6)) explicitly states those are the actions under sub-sections (5)(a) and (5)(b). The Bill has parallel wording but formatting differs.
        • Practical impact: Substantively similar; Act wording makes explicit which actions are permissible during TDS/TCS verification entry.
      • Definition of "proceeding": The Act (Document 1, sub-section (11)(B)) contains an express definition of "proceeding" (covering pending, completed, and subsequently commenced proceedings in respect of any year). The Bill (Document 2) does not include that definition.
        • Practical impact: The Act's explicit definition broadens clarity that survey material can be used for multiple stages of assessment or later proceedings; the Bill leaves this potentially ambiguous.
      • Inclusion of Inspector of Income-tax: Both versions include Inspector of Income-tax for limited purposes, though the Act sets out the inclusion within sub-clause labelling (11)(A)/(B) and specifies subordinate relationship "as specified by the Board."
        • Practical impact: Largely administrative/drafting differences; both permit limited use of Inspectors for designated actions.
      • Other drafting and structural differences: Minor differences in clause sequencing and phrasing (e.g., use of "exclusive of holidays," "up to" vs "of"), and the Act's explicit prohibition on removal of assets (sub-section (7)) mirrors the Bill but with slightly different placement.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive/drafting; the Act is marginally more detailed in certain definitions (notably "proceeding") and in expressly including computer systems for impoundment, while the Bill more explicitly referenced virtual digital space and electronic media.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should be prepared to provide technical assistance and access codes on survey entry; failure or evasion exposes them to enforcement u/s 246(1). The express reach to electronic media and virtual digital space increases exposure of cloud-stored records during surveys.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should maintain accessible copies of records, documented chain of custody for electronic records, and contemporaneous explanations of transactions likely to be scrutinised. Given the power to mark and copy, maintaining integrity and availability of archives and backups is important. Not stated in the document: retention periods or specific standards for electronic evidence preservation beyond usual record-keeping obligations.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 253 authorises robust survey powers, including entry, technical access (including access codes), marking, copying and impounding of records.
      • The Bill explicitly targets electronic media and virtual digital space, reflecting attention to digital records; it also permits access for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Temporal limits apply: business-hours or daylight entries and distinct restrictions when entry is for TDS/TCS verification.
      • Impounding requires reasons to be recorded; retention beyond fifteen days needs prior approval.
      • Non-compliance with survey requisitions triggers enforcement powers u/s 246(1).
      • The Bill lists authorised officers and permits Inspectors of Income-tax to act for limited purposes; however, some procedural and privacy safeguards are not detailed in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 253 Powers of survey.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax