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 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