Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax