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 288 "Other amendments" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      10 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 288 Other amendments

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 288 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out a list of specific situations in which an Assessing Officer may amend past assessments within prescribed time limits and subject to conditions. It affects taxpayers (partners, members of AOP/BOI, companies, transferors, assessees claiming foreign income deductions or TDS credits, patentees) and the tax department (Assessing Officers, Transfer Pricing Officers). Effective dates or decision dates: "From the end of the financial year" or "from the end of the year" as specified in each table entry (exact effective dates tied to triggering events are stated per row).

      Background & Scope

      Clause 288 (Other amendments) interacts with section 287(8) (limitation), sections 35, 67-71 (capital gains), sections 78 (stamp duty valuation), 111-115 (carry forward and set off provisions), section 144 (deduction for income received in foreign exchange), section 270(1) (intimations), section 279 (recomputation), section 166 and 275 (transfer pricing), Chapter XIX-B (TDS), and the Patents Act, 1970. The clause supplies a table enumerating specific actions an Assessing Officer may take, the conditions triggering those actions, and the time from which the four-year period is reckoned. Definitions: Not stated in the document beyond cross-references to statutory sections.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 288 authorises the Assessing Officer to effect amendments or recomputations in completed assessments in a limited set of circumstances enumerated in a table. Coverage includes: adjustment of partner's income when firm remuneration is found non-deductible u/s 35(f); inclusion or correction of a member's share of AOP/BOI income; recomputation of succeeding years' income where loss/depreciation is recomputed u/s 279; recomputation of transferor company income where capital gains treatment arises u/ss 67/70/71; exclusion of capital gains u/s 89 where reinvestment/acquisition occurs; allowance of deduction u/s 144 where foreign receipts are brought into India; credit for foreign tax paid after dispute settlement; revision of capital gain computation where stamp duty valuation is revised; recomputation where compensation is reduced by judicial or other authority; disallowance following patent revocation under the Patents Act; and correction of TDS credit allocation where TDS was deducted in a subsequent year. The provision also addresses transfer pricing recomputations u/s 166 (see end of the Clause).

      Interpretation

      The legislative design is remedial and limited: the power to amend is constrained to specific factual triggers rather than a general power of revision. Timelines are tied to concrete events (end of the financial year in which the subsequent order was passed; end of the year in which a conversion/cessation occurs; three-month windows for TP recomputation). The text indicates Parliament's intent to permit retrospective alignment of assessments where downstream developments (court orders, reassessments, valuation revisions, patent revocation, settlement of foreign tax disputes) alter the factual or legal basis of earlier assessments. The provision repeatedly applies the procedural safeguards of section 287 "so far as may be" to the listed amendments.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Explicit provisos include time-limits: generally within four years referred to in section 287(8) reckoned from specified events for each row. For the transfer pricing recomputation (serial No.12 in this version), there is an exception in timing-three months from the end of the month in which the assessment for the relevant tax year is completed; if not made within such three months, an alternate three-month window runs from the end of the month in which the assessment or intimation is made. The Bill notes that the four-year period does not apply to serial number 12. No other general provisos or monetary thresholds are provided in the text.

      Illustrations

      • Partner remuneration: A firm's assessment is later amended to disallow a partner's remuneration u/s 35(f). The Assessing Officer may amend the partner's completed assessment to reduce the partner's claimed income correspondingly; the time limit runs from the end of the financial year in which the firm's subsequent order was passed.
      • Recomputation following depreciation change: An assessee's depreciation for year N is recomputed u/s 279; the Assessing Officer may recompute and amend the assessee's total income for years M+1 (succeeding years where loss/depreciation was carried forward) from the end of the financial year in which the section 279 order was passed.
      • Transfer pricing option: A Transfer Pricing Officer validates an option u/s 166(9) for the arm's length price for an international transaction for two subsequent years; the Assessing Officer must recompute the two consecutive years' incomes in conformity with the TPO's arm's length determination within the prescribed three-month window.

      Interplay

      The Clause cross-references numerous assessment, revision and recomputation provisions (sections 279, 287, 166, 165, 270, 275) and the Patents Act. It expressly subjects amendments to the procedural rules of section 287 "so far as may be" and signals interaction with Chapter XIX-B (TDS) and Chapter IX-B (specified territories for foreign tax credit). Potential procedural dependencies (for example, the effect of an order u/s 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) are incorporated as triggering events for amendment.

      Differences between (Document 1) Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and (Document 2) Clause 288 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      Summary of material differences and practical impact:

      • Reference to subsection numbers and cross-references: Document 1 (Act version) refers broadly to amendments under "this section or section 287 or 359 or 363 or 365 or 368 or 377 or 378" in several entries. Document 2 (Bill old version) contains largely the same cross-references but shows minor ordering and numeric differences (for example, in Serial No.1 Document 2 refers to section 35(f) whereas Document 1 refers to section 35(e)).
        • Practical impact: Change in the cited subsection of section 35 (from 35(f) to 35(e)) alters the substantive trigger for amendments relating to partner remuneration - which affects which deductions, if disallowed at firm level, can be adjusted in partner assessments. This is potentially significant for assessments involving partner remuneration allowances; taxpayers and authorities will need to apply the correct sub-clause.
      • Timing language for certain recomputations (Serial No.4): In Document 2 (Bill old version), the time for recomputation of the transferor company's total income is expressed as "From the end of the year- (i) in which the capital asset was converted or treated as stock-in trade; or (ii) in which the parent company or its nominees or, the holding company ceased to hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company." Document 1 (Act version) states "From the end of the financial year in which the order was passed in the case of the firm" for other entries and, for Serial No.4, "From the end of the financial year in which the order revising the value was passed..." and similar. There is slight variation in wording (year vs financial year) across entries.
        • Practical impact: The distinction between "year" and "financial year" can affect the limitation period reckoning. Clarity that the reckoning is from end of the financial year is important for time-bar considerations; any inconsistency may create interpretive disputes on when the four-year window starts.
      • Serial numbering and an added/modified serial (Serial No.12 in Bill): Document 2 (Bill old) contains a Serial No.12 expressly dealing with recomputation for two consecutive tax years following a Transfer Pricing Officer determination (references to section 166(6), section 275(5) and timings for section 165(7) and (8)). Document 1 (Act) appears to fold similar content into subsection (2) but formats it differently (it numbers up to 11 in the Table and places transfer-pricing recomputation in sub-section (2)).
        • Practical impact: Repositioning the transfer-pricing-specific provision from a table entry to a separate subsection (as in the Act) or leaving it as a table item (Bill) is largely drafting/structural but can affect ease of reference and potential interaction with other table items; functionally the substance appears similar though readers must ensure they apply the correct procedural timing as enacted.
      • Drafting differences on ordering and cross-references to procedural sections: The Bill and the Act versions show minor differences in the list of sections cited for consequential reductions/enhancements (e.g., Document 2 lists section numbers including 356 in one place whereas Document 1 lists 287 and other numbers).
        • Practical impact: Any variance in the list of cross-referenced sections may expand or narrow the instances in which the Assessing Officer may amend earlier assessments. Stakeholders need to map which of the cited sections in each version actually exist and apply; inconsistency may cause interpretive work and potential disputes.
      • Literal phrasing and punctuation: Several entries differ in punctuation, ordering of clauses and in the phrasing of conditions (for example, Document 2 often uses dashes and parentheses differently). These are drafting-level changes rather than clear substantive shifts.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive/clarificatory; however, precise punctuation or connective language in tax statutes can affect interpretation in edge cases, so practitioners should rely on the enacted (Act) text for authoritative application.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers with inter-party allocations (partners, AOP/BOI members), carry forwards for losses/depreciation, foreign income or foreign tax credits, patents, and those involved in compulsory acquisition or government/RBI price approvals face targeted reassessment risk when downstream orders or conversions occur. Transfer pricing adjustments validated by a TPO can trigger immediate recomputations for two subsequent years within short procedural windows.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text requires documentary triggers (orders, reassessments, settlement evidence, TDS payment evidence, undertakings). Taxpayers should preserve and be ready to produce evidence of settlement of foreign tax disputes, court/tribunal orders reducing compensation, RBI approvals for repatriation, patent controller/high court orders, and TDS payment records. The Bill prescribes prescribed forms for certain applications (TDS credit reallocation), but the form details are "Not stated in the document."

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 288 enumerates specific, limited circumstances in which an Assessing Officer may amend completed assessments, tying the limitation period to concrete triggering events.
      • Transfer pricing recomputation for two consecutive tax years is given a distinct procedural timeline (three months) and is excepted from the four-year limitation in this version of the Bill.
      • Triggers include reassessment orders, recomputation u/s 279, judicial or executive revisions of compensation/valuations, patent revocation, and settlement of foreign tax disputes.
      • The provision emphasises documentary triggers and procedural cross-references (section 287, section 165, section 270), signalling administrative constraints and remedies.
      • Practical risk zones include partner remuneration disallowances, AOP/BOI share corrections, carry-forward adjustments, TDS credit reallocation, and TP determinations; timelines for amendment are often measured from the end of the financial year in which the triggering order was passed.
      • Specific procedural details (prescribed forms, fee, appeal remedies, or administrative guidance) are "Not stated in the document."
      • Where the Bill differs from later or alternate drafts (see Document 1), practitioners must monitor the final enacted text for changes in cross-references (e.g., section 35 sub-clauses), timing language, and structural placement of TP provisions.

      Full Text:

      Section 288 Other amendments

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax